1. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning
Erin Begle and Sarah Donovan

2. Meet Lawrence Kohlberg...
Born in Bronxville, New York on October 25, 1927.
Enrolled at the University of Chicago in 1948.
Because of his interest in Piaget began interviewing children and adolescents on moral issues which resulted in his doctoral dissertation – the first edition of his new stage theory.
He taught at both the University of Chicago and Harvard.
At age 59, he committed suicide.

3. Kohlberg’s Stages of Development

4. Level I Precoventional
Stage 1 Heteronomous Morality
Adherence to rules backed by punishment; obedience for its own sake.
Obedience and punishment orientation.
Stage 2 Individualism, Instrumental Purpose and Exchange
Acting to meet one’s own interests and needs, and letting others do the same.
A recognition that other people also have needs. They may try to satisfy the needs of others, only if their own needs are also met.
“You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”
Authority
At the pre-conventional level, we don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.
Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.
In Stage 2 they continue to define right and wrong primarily in terms of consequences to themselves.

5. based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
Level II
Conventional
Stage 3 Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships and Interpersonal Conformity
Living up to what others expect.
Stage 4 Social System and Conscience
Fulfilling the actual duties to which one has agreed.
Upholding laws except in extreme cases when they conflict with other fixed social duties.
Contributing to a society, group of institution.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.
Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.
In stage 3, people make decisions based on what actions will please others, especially authority figures and other individuals with high status (e.g., teachers, popular peers). They are concerned about maintaining relationships through sharing, trust, and loyalty, and they take other people's perspectives and intentions into account when making decisions.
In Stage 4, People look to society as a whole for guidelines about right or wrong. They know rules are necessary for keeping society running smoothly and believe it is their "duty" to obey them. However, they perceive rules to be inflexible; they don't necessarily recognize that as society's needs change, rules should change as well.

6. Level III Post Conventional or Principled
Stage 5 A Social-Contract Orientation, Generally with Legalistic and Utilitarian Overtones
Being aware that people hold a variety of values and opinions; these are often relative to the group that holds them.
Upholding rules in the interests of impartiality and because they are the social contract.
Non-relative values and rights, such as life and liberty, must be upheld in any society, regardless of majority opinion.
Authority
Authority
In Level 3, Post Conventional Morality or Principled Morality...Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.
In stage 5 rules are seen as potentially useful mechanisms that can maintain the general social order and protect individual rights, rather than the absolute dictate that must be obeyed simply because they are "the law." People also recognize the flexibility of rules; rules that no longer serve society's best interests can and should be changed. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

7. Level III Post Conventional or Principled
Stage 6 Universal and Ethical Principles
Following self-chosen universal principles of justice: the equality of human rights and respect for dignity.
Judging laws in relation to these principles.
When laws violate principles, acting in accordance with the principle.
Although we did not consider this stage for our study, we were impressed with some of our students answers.
Stage 6 is a hypothetical, "ideal" stage that few people ever reach. People in this stage adhere to a few abstract, universal principles such as equality of all people, respect for human dignity, and commitment to justice, that transcend specific norms and rules. They answer to a strong inner conscience and willingly disobey laws that violate their own ethical principles.

8. Our Hypotheses
We believe that after students partake in stimulating intellectual discussion, the majority of students will change their opinions/answers.
We believe that as students mature in age and progress in grade level, their moral development will develop. Thus, the eighth graders will score higher than the second graders.
The purpose of this research study is to investigate and evaluate student responses to dilemmas in light of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.
Kohlberg suggests that when children experience some cognitive conflict they are motivated to think about a matter more fully. After children participate in a discussion which offers support for responses to the dilemma different from the child’s original responses, do their subsequent written responses reflect a higher stage of moral reasoning? Do their viewpoints change after the discussion?

9. The Process:
After students have signed assent forms, worksheets will be passed out.
Researches will read Moral Dilemma I to the group and then ask students to answer questions independently.
Once completed, researchers will collect worksheets.
Researchers will lead a discussion using the aid of the questions to stimulate dialogue.
After the discussion, researchers will hand back worksheets and ask the students to make any necessary adjustments in RED ink.

10. Looking at a Moral Dilemma
Two standard issues are placed side by side.
The Standard Issue Moral Judgment Interview consists of three parallel form.
Life and law
Morality and conscience
Authority and contract
Of course, the dilemma also can be seen to involve other value conflicts depending on the interpretation of the student. For example one could view the Heinz dilemma which we are all familiar with, as a conflict between husband’s love for his wife (affiliation) and the druggist's property (property).
Probing questions are designed to elicit information on the subject’s conceptions of these two issues.

11. Moral Dilemma I
Joe is a fourteen-year-old boy who wants to go to camp very much. His father has promised him that he can go if he saves up the money for it himself. So Joe works hard at his paper route and saves up the $40 it costs to go to the camp and an additional $10. But, one week before the start of camp, Joe’s father tells Joe that he has changed his mind about camp. And, the father tells Joe that some of his friends have decided to go on a special fishing trip and that he is short of the money needed to go on the trip. The father tells Joe to give him the camp money he had saved from doing his paper route. Joe does not want to give up going to camp so he thinks of refusing to give his father the money.

12. Moral Dilemma Questions:
1. Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?
1a. Why or why not?
2. Does the father have the right to tell Joe to give him the money?
2a. Why or why not?
3. Does giving the money have anything to do with being a good son?
3a. Why or why not?
4. Is the fact that Joe earned the money himself important in this situation?
4a. Why or why not?
5. The father promised Joe he could go to camp if he earned the money. Is the fact that the father promised the most important thing in the situation?
5a. Why or why not?
6. In general, why should a promise kept?
7. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well and probably won't see again?
7a. Why or why not?
8. What do you think is the most important thing a father should be concerned about in his relationship to his son?
8a. Why is that the most important thing?
9. In general, what should be the authority of a father over his son?
9a. Why?
10. What do you think is the most important thing a son should be concerned about in his relationship to his father?
10a. Why is that the most important thing?
11. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing for Joe to do in this situation?
11a. Why?

13. Terms
Egocentrism- not necessarily one being selfish or conceited, but a state in which one person can only perceive their own interests, feelings, and desires and may project these onto people around them. For example a child in a classroom is bored with reading and is excited for recess and though the rest of the class is engaged the student tells the teacher that it is time for recess because he is ready.
Moral Heteronomy- when a child determines what is right and wrong based on the rule set forth by some sort of authority figure. The child does not think about the rules any more deeply than the understanding that they are rules and obeying the rules is good and disobeying the rules and getting punished is bad. For example, in a game of cards, when children are still in this stage, the rules and instructions must be followed exactly or the child will likely cry out, “He’s cheating!” and may even declare what punishment cheating deserves such as “time-out” or forfeiting the game.
Moral Autonomy- when one reaches a state when they are capable of considering right and wrong for themselves beyond what authority has declared acceptable, perhaps even that the right thing is to break the rules. For example, a teenager who knows their curfew is a rule set up by their parents to ensure the teenager’s safety, but chooses to break their curfew to help a friend continue studying for an exam. In this case, the teenager thinks beyond the rule, knows that the purpose of the rule has still been fulfilled, and realizes that they can help another person even if it means accepting the punishment from their parents for missing their curfew.

14. Our Adaptation: Gave a “yes” or “no” answer
Our Adaptation: Gave a “yes” or “no” answer. Did not offer any clarification to their own reasoning.
Stage 1:
“Heteronomous Morality” Adherence to rules backed by punishment; obedience for its own sake.
For Example:
In order to standardize the set of issues scored for each interview, the central issues for each dilemma were predefined. 1

15. Our Adaptation: The answer was about themselves, one sided, only when their needs were meant are they willing to help others, emphasis on fair exchange policy.
“Individualism, Instrumental Purpose and Exchange”
Acting to meet one’s own interests and needs, and letting others do the same.
Stage 2:
1.5

16. Our Adaptation: the child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers are related to the approval of others.
“Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships and Interpersonal Conformity”
Living up to what others expect.
Stage 3: 2

17. Our Adaptation: The answer was concerned with one’s duties.
Stage 4:
“Social System and Conscience”
Fulfilling the actual duties to which one has agreed.
2.5

18. Our Adaptation: Answers went beyond the law, demonstrated duality in their thinking.
“A Social-Contract Orientation, Generally with Legalistic and Utilitarian Overtones”
Non-relative values and rights, such as life and liberty, must be upheld in any society, regardless of majority opinion.
Stage 5: 3

19. Lens to Catholic Thinkers at Holy Family
When scoring we did not consider Stage 6 “Universal and Ethical Principles” in our study, however we were very impressed with some student answers. Sharing responses such as:
“The most important thing in life is love, because love makes people happy.”
“The most important thing is love, because a father should do everything out of love.”
“Life is about making scarifies.”
Using terms such as “good morals” and “honor”.
Following self-chosen universal principles of justice: the equality of human rights and respect for dignity.
Judging laws in relation to these principles.
When laws violate principles, acting in accordance with the principle.

20. Accept 3 1 7 4 1 2 1 Results: 19 Total Participants-
7 Second Graders 1 10
1.5 2
2.5 4 3
19 Total Participants-
6 Fourth Graders
6 Eighth Graders
Accept 3 1
Number of Participants 7 4 1 2 1
Stage/Level of Moral Development

21. Changing Opinion vs. Enhancing Intellection
Try Again
Changing Opinion vs. Enhancing Intellection
Out of our 19 participants, only nine of them made changes or edited their original answers. While this may seem to yield results that disprove our hypothesis, we are going to choose to be stubborn because the responses in red ink consisted of picture drawing and was only used to finish answering their remaining questions rather than cognitive development stimulated by intellectual discussion. Kohlberg suggests that when children experience some cognitive conflict they are motivated to think about a matter more fully and we still agree with Kohlberg. We do recognize there is a fine line between changing someone’s opinion for sake of “fitting in” versus an enhancement of intellection which brings the student to a more developed answer which recognizes another viewpoint. As theorists do, we would go back into the lab and create an experiment to test our hypothesis more fully and once

22. Limitations: Convenience sample Ambiguities of the word ‘promise’
Misinterpretation of questions
Time
Student disposition
Lack of interest/distraction