essays on moral development kohlberg

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Verywell / Bailey Mariner

• Applications
• Other Theories

Take This Pop Quiz

Kohlberg's theory of moral development is a theory that focuses on how children develop morality and moral reasoning. Kohlberg's theory suggests that moral development occurs in a series of six stages and that moral logic is primarily focused on seeking and maintaining justice.

Here we discuss how Kohlberg developed his theory of moral development and the six stages he identified as part of this process. We also share some critiques of Kohlberg's theory, many of which suggest that it may be biased based on the limited demographics of the subjects studied.

Test Your Knowledge

At the end of this article, take a fast and free pop quiz to see how much you've learned about Kohlberg's theory.

What Is Moral Development?

Moral development is the process by which people develop the distinction between right and wrong (morality) and engage in reasoning between the two (moral reasoning).

How do people develop morality? This question has fascinated parents, religious leaders, and philosophers for ages, but moral development has also become a hot-button issue in psychology and education. Do parental or societal influences play a greater role in moral development? Do all kids develop morality in similar ways?

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed one of the best-known theories exploring some of these basic questions. His work modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's previous work but was more centered on explaining how children develop moral reasoning.

Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan. Kohlberg's theory outlines six stages of moral development within three different levels.

In recent years, Kohlberg's theory has been criticized as being Western-centric with a bias toward men (he primarily used male research subjects) and for having a narrow worldview based on upper-middle-class value systems and perspectives.

How Kohlberg Developed His Theory

Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral dilemmas presented to his study subjects. Participants were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments in each scenario.

One example was "Heinz Steals the Drug." In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to whether Heinz was wrong or right but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. He then classified their reasoning into the stages of his theory of moral development.

Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is broken down into three primary levels. At each level of moral development, there are two stages. Similar to how Piaget believed that not all people reach the highest levels of cognitive development, Kohlberg believed not everyone progresses to the highest stages of moral development.

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the earliest period of moral development. It lasts until around the age of 9. At this age, children's decisions are primarily shaped by the expectations of adults and the consequences of breaking the rules. There are two stages within this level:

• Stage 1 (Obedience and Punishment) : The earliest stages of moral development, obedience and punishment are especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. According to Kohlberg, people at this stage see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a way to avoid punishment.
• Stage 2 (Individualism and Exchange) : At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

The next period of moral development is marked by the acceptance of social rules regarding what is good and moral. During this time, adolescents and adults internalize the moral standards they have learned from their role models and from society.

This period also focuses on the acceptance of authority and conforming to the norms of the group. There are two stages at this level of morality:

• Stage 3 (Developing Good Interpersonal Relationships) : Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of the interpersonal relationship of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles . There is an emphasis on conformity , being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.
• Stage 4 (Maintaining Social Order) : This stage is focused on ensuring that social order is maintained. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

At this level of moral development, people develop an understanding of abstract principles of morality. The two stages at this level are:

• Stage 5 (Social Contract and Individual Rights ): The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.
• Stage 6 (Universal Principles) : Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

Kohlberg believed that only a relatively small percentage of people ever reach the post-conventional stages (around 10 to 15%). One analysis found that while stages one to four could be seen as universal in populations throughout the world, the fifth and sixth stages were extremely rare in all populations.

Applications for Kohlberg's Theory

Understanding Kohlberg's theory of moral development is important in that it can help parents guide their children as they develop their moral character. Parents with younger children might work on rule obeyance, for instance, whereas they might teach older children about social expectations.

Teachers and other educators can also apply Kohlberg's theory in the classroom, providing additional moral guidance. A kindergarten teacher could help enhance moral development by setting clear rules for the classroom, and the consequences for violating them. This helps kids at stage one of moral development.

A teacher in high school might focus more on the development that occurs in stage three (developing good interpersonal relationships) and stage four (maintaining social order). This could be accomplished by having the students take part in setting the rules to be followed in the classroom, giving them a better idea of the reasoning behind these rules.

Criticisms for Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory played an important role in the development of moral psychology. While the theory has been highly influential, aspects of the theory have been critiqued for a number of reasons:

• Moral reasoning does not equal moral behavior : Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Moral reasoning, therefore, may not lead to moral behavior.
• Overemphasizes justice : Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept of justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring, and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.
• Cultural bias : Individualist cultures emphasize personal rights, while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern, collectivist cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not take into account.
• Age bias : Most of his subjects were children under the age of 16 who obviously had no experience with marriage. The Heinz dilemma may have been too abstract for these children to understand, and a scenario more applicable to their everyday concerns might have led to different results.
• Gender bias : Kohlberg's critics, including Carol Gilligan, have suggested that Kohlberg's theory was gender-biased since all of the subjects in his sample were male. Kohlberg believed that women tended to remain at the third level of moral development because they place a stronger emphasis on things such as social relationships and the welfare of others.

Gilligan instead suggested that Kohlberg's theory overemphasizes concepts such as justice and does not adequately address moral reasoning founded on the principles and ethics of caring and concern for others.

Other Theories of Moral Development

Kohlberg isn't the only psychologist to theorize how we develop morally. There are several other theories of moral development.

Piaget's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg's theory is an expansion of Piaget's theory of moral development. Piaget described a three-stage process of moral development:

• Stage 1 : The child is more concerned with developing and mastering their motor and social skills, with no general concern about morality.
• Stage 2 : The child develops unconditional respect both for authority figures and the rules in existence.
• Stage 3 : The child starts to see rules as being arbitrary, also considering an actor's intentions when judging whether an act or behavior is moral or immoral.

Kohlberg expanded on this theory to include more stages in the process. Additionally, Kohlberg believed that the final stage is rarely achieved by individuals whereas Piaget's stages of moral development are common to all.

Moral Foundations Theory

Proposed by Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, the moral foundations theory is based on three morality principles:

• Intuition develops before strategic reasoning . Put another way, our reaction comes first, which is then followed by rationalization.
• Morality involves more than harm and fairness . Contained within this second principle are a variety of considerations related to morality. It includes: care vs. harm, liberty vs. oppression, fairness vs. cheating, loyalty vs. betrayal , authority vs. subversion, and sanctity vs. degradation.
• Morality can both bind groups and blind individuals . When people are part of a group, they will tend to adopt that group's same value systems. They may also sacrifice their own morals for the group's benefit.

While Kohlberg's theory is primarily focused on help vs. harm, moral foundations theory encompasses several more dimensions of morality. However, this theory also fails to explain the "rules" people use when determining what is best for society.

Normative Theories of Moral Behavior

Several other theories exist that attempt to explain the development of morality , specifically in relation to social justice. Some fall into the category of transcendental institutionalist, which involves trying to create "perfect justice." Others are realization-focused, concentrating more on removing injustices.

One theory falling into the second category is social choice theory. Social choice theory is a collection of models that seek to explain how individuals can use their input (their preferences) to impact society as a whole. An example of this is voting, which allows the majority to decide what is "right" and "wrong."

See how much you've learned (or maybe already knew!) about Kohlberg's theory of moral development with this quick, free pop quiz.

While Kohlberg's theory of moral development has been criticized, the theory played an important role in the emergence of the field of moral psychology. Researchers continue to explore how moral reasoning develops and changes through life as well as the universality of these stages. Understanding these stages offers helpful insights into the ways that both children and adults make moral choices and how moral thinking may influence decisions and behaviors.

Lapsley D. Moral agency, identity and narrative in moral development .  Hum Dev . 2010;53(2):87-97. doi:10.1159/000288210

Elorrieta-Grimalt M. A critical analysis of moral education according to Lawrence Kohlberg .  Educación y Educadores . 2012;15(3):497-512. doi:10.5294/edu.2012.15.3.9

Govrin A. From ethics of care to psychology of care: Reconnecting ethics of care to contemporary moral psychology .  Front Psychol . 2014;5:1135. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01135

American Psychological Association. Heinz dilemma .

American Psychological Association. Kohlberg's theory of moral development .

Kohlberg L, Essays On Moral Development . Harper & Row; 1985.

Ma HK. The moral development of the child: An integrated model .  Front Public Health . 2013;1:57. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2013.00057

Gibbs J.  Moral Development And Reality . 4th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019.

Gilligan C.  In A Different Voice . Harvard University Press; 2016.

Patanella D. Piaget's theory of moral development . Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2167

Dubas KM, Dubas SM, Mehta R. Theories of justice and moral behavior . J Legal Ethical Regulatory Issues . 2014;17(2):17-35.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory asserting that individuals progress through six distinct stages of moral reasoning from infancy to adulthood.
• He grouped these stages into three broad categories of moral reasoning, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is associated with increasingly complex stages of moral development.
• Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development . 

Heinz Dilemma

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget’s (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.

He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas.  In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual unfairly treated.

After presenting people with various moral dilemmas, Kohlberg categorized their responses into different stages of moral reasoning.

Using children’s responses to a series of moral dilemmas, Kohlberg established that the reasoning behind the decision was a greater indication of moral development than the actual answer.

One of Kohlberg’s best-known stories (1958) concerns Heinz, who lived somewhere in Europe.

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the Heinz could afford. Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

• Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
• Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
• What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
• Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman dies?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older.

The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. Kohlberg was interested not in whether the boys judged the action right or wrong but in the reasons for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.

People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. 

Disequilibrium plays a crucial role in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. A child encountering a moral issue may recognize limitations in their current reasoning approach, often prompted by exposure to others’ viewpoints. Improvements in perspective-taking are key to progressing through Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. As children mature, they increasingly understand issues from others’ viewpoints. For instance, a child at the preconventional level typically perceives an issue primarily in terms of personal consequences. In contrast, a child at the conventional level tends to consider the perspectives of others more substantially.

Level 1 – Preconventional Morality

Preconventional morality is the first level of moral development, lasting until approximately age 8. During this level, children accept the authority (and moral code) of others. 

Preconventional morality is when people follow rules because they don’t want to get in trouble or they want to get a reward. This level of morality is mostly based on what authority figures like parents or teachers tell you to do rather than what you think is right or wrong.

Authority is outside the individual, and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions.

For example, if an action leads to punishment, it must be bad; if it leads to a reward, it must be good.

So, people at this level don’t have their own personal sense of right and wrong yet. They think that something is good if they get rewarded for it and bad if they get punished for it.

For example, if you get candy for behaving, you think you were good, but if you get a scolding for misbehaving, you think you were bad.

At the preconventional level, children don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation . The child/individual is good to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange . At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 – Conventional Morality

Conventional morality is the adolescent phase of moral development focused on societal norms and external expectations to discern right from wrong, often grounded in tradition, cultural practices, or established codes of conduct.

We internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models at the conventional level (most adolescents and adults).

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the group’s norms to which the person belongs.

A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships and social order is seen as desirable and must influence our view of right and wrong.

So, people who follow conventional morality believe that it’s important to follow society’s rules and expectations to maintain order and prevent problems.

For example, refusing to cheat on a test is a part of conventional morality because cheating can harm the academic system and create societal problems.

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships . The child/individual is good to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

Stage 4. Law and Order Morality . The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules to uphold the law and avoid guilt.

Level 3 – Postconventional Morality

Postconventional morality is the third level of moral development and is characterized by an individual’s understanding of universal ethical principles.

Postconventional morality is when people decide based on what they think is right rather than just following the rules of society. This means that people at this level of morality have their own ethical principles and values and don’t just do what society tells them to do.

At this level, people think about what is fair, what is just, and what values are important.

What is considered morally acceptable in any given situation is determined by what is the response most in keeping with these principles.

They also think about how their choices might affect others and try to make good decisions for everyone, not just themselves.

Values are abstract and ill-defined but might include: the preservation of life at all costs and the importance of human dignity. Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.

According to Kohlberg, this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them, and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights . The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

Stage 6. Universal Principles . People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines, which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality.  The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people had reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Methods

1. the dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity).

Most dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma, asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.

However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story.

How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

Kohlberg’s (1969) theory suggested males more frequently progress beyond stage four in moral development, implying females lacked moral reasoning skills.

His research assistant, Carol Gilligan, disputed this, who argued that women’s moral reasoning differed, not deficient.

She criticized Kohlberg’s theory for focusing solely on upper-class white males, arguing women value interpersonal connections. For instance, women often oppose theft in the Heinz dilemma due to potential repercussions, such as separation from his wife if Heinz is imprisoned.

Gilligan (1982) conducted new studies interviewing both men and women, finding women more often emphasized care, relationships and context rather than abstract rules. Gilligan argued that Kohlberg’s theory overlooked this relational “different voice” in morality.

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric).

Men’s morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while women’s is based on principles of compassion and care.

Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminder of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which, when ignored, can greatly impact the results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)

Kohlberg’s approach to studying moral reasoning relied heavily on his semi-structured moral judgment interview. Participants were presented with hypothetical moral dilemmas, and their justifications were analyzed to determine their stage of moral reasoning.

Some critiques of Kohlberg’s method are that it lacks ecological validity, removes reasoning from real-life contexts, and defines morality narrowly in terms of justice reasoning.

Psychologists concur with Kohlberg’s moral development theory, yet emphasize the difference between moral reasoning and behavior.

What we claim we’d do in a hypothetical situation often differs from our actions when faced with the actual circumstance. In essence, our actions might not align with our proclaimed values.

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We don’t know.

The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an artificial dilemma questions the validity of the results obtained through this research.

People may respond very differently to real-life situations that they find themselves in than they do to an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.

4. Poor research design

How Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression.

His research was cross-sectional , meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see their moral development level.

A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would be to conduct longitudinal research on the same children.

However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983), who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study.

She tested them six times in 27 years and supported Kohlberg’s original conclusion, which is that we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Contemporary research employs more diverse methods beyond Kohlberg’s interview approach, such as narrative analysis, to study moral experience. These newer methods aim to understand moral reasoning and development within authentic contexts and experiences.

• Tappan and colleagues (1996) promote a narrative approach that examines how individuals construct stories and identities around moral experiences. This draws from the sociocultural tradition of examining identity in context. Tappan argues narrative provides a more contextualized understanding of moral development.
• Colby and Damon’s (1992) empirical research uses in-depth life story interviews to study moral exemplars – people dedicated to moral causes. Instead of hypothetical dilemmas, they ask participants to describe real moral challenges and commitments. Their goal is to respect exemplars as co-investigators of moral meaning-making.
• Walker and Pitts’ (1995) studies use open-ended interviews asking people to discuss real-life moral dilemmas and reflect on the moral domain in their own words. This elicits more naturalistic conceptions of morality compared to Kohlberg’s abstract decontextualized approach.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory

1. are there distinct stages of moral development.

Kohlberg claims there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion.

For example, a person who justified a decision based on principled reasoning in one situation (postconventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story.

In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more on the situation than on general rules. Moreover, individuals do not always progress through the stages, and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen slipped backward.

The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak. Some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

Gilligan (1982) did not dismiss developmental psychology or morality. She acknowledged that children undergo moral development in stages and even praised Kohlberg’s stage logic as “brilliant” (Jorgensen, 2006, p. 186). However, she preferred Erikson’s model over the more rigid Piagetian stages.

While Gilligan supported Kohlberg’s stage theory as rational, she expressed discomfort with its structural descriptions that lacked context.

She also raised concerns about the theory’s universality, pointing out that it primarily reflected Western culture (Jorgensen, 2006, pp. 187-188).

Neo-Kohlbergian Schema Model

Rest and colleagues (199) have developed a theoretical model building on but moving beyond Kohlberg’s stage-based approach to moral development. Their model outlines four components of moral behavior: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character.

For the moral judgment component, Rest et al. propose that individuals use moral schemas rather than progress through discrete stages of moral reasoning.

Schemas are generalized knowledge structures that help us interpret information and situations. An individual can have multiple schemas available to make sense of moral issues, rather than being constrained to a single developmental stage.

Some examples of moral schemas proposed by Rest and colleagues include:

• Personal Interest Schema – focused on individual interests and preferences
• Maintaining Norms Schema – emphasizes following rules and norms
• Postconventional Schema – considers moral ideals and principles

Rather than viewing development as movement to higher reasoning stages, the neo-Kohlbergian approach sees moral growth as acquiring additional, more complex moral schemas. Lower schemas are not replaced, but higher order moral schemas become available to complement existing ones.

The schema concept attempts to address critiques of the stage model, such as its rigidity and lack of context sensitivity. Using schemas allows for greater flexibility and integration of social factors into moral reasoning.

2. Does moral judgment match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one-to-one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do), but he does suggest that the two are linked.

However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take into account of:

a) habits that people have developed over time. b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation. c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way. d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self-interest and so on.

Overall, Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It also has to do with social factors.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has often been in advance of that of females.

Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation), whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan (p. 484) replies:

“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development”.

In other words, Gilligan claims that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.

Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.

In contrast to Kohlberg’s impersonal “ethics of justice”, Gilligan proposed an alternative “ethics of care” grounded in compassion and responsiveness to needs within relationships (Gilligan, 1982).

Her care perspective highlights emotion, empathy and understanding over detached logic. Gilligan saw care and justice ethics as complementary moral orientations.

Walker et al. (1995) found everyday moral conflicts often revolve around relationships rather than justice; individuals describe relying more on intuition than moral reasoning in dilemmas. This raises questions about the centrality of reasoning in moral functioning.

4. Do people make rational moral decisions?

Kohlbeg’s theory emphasizes rationality and logical decision-making at the expense of emotional and contextual factors in moral decision-making.

One significant criticism is that Kohlberg’s emphasis on reason can create an image of the moral person as cold and detached from real-life situations. 

Carol Gilligan critiqued Kohlberg’s theory as overly rationalistic and not accounting for care-based morality commonly found in women. She argued for a “different voice” grounded in relationships and responsiveness to particular individuals.

The criticism suggests that by portraying moral reasoning as primarily cognitive and detached from emotional and situational factors, Kohlberg’s theory oversimplifies real-life moral decision-making, which often involves emotions, social dynamics, cultural nuances, and practical constraints.

Critics contend that his model does not adequately capture the multifaceted nature of morality in the complexities of everyday life.

Bee, H. L. (1994). Lifespan development . HarperCollins College Publishers.

Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory.  Ethics ,  98 (3), 472-491.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Day, J. M., & Tappan, M. B. (1996). The narrative approach to moral development: From the epistemic subject to dialogical selves.  Human Development ,  39 (2), 67-82.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review , 47(4), 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice . Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10 (2), 120-127.

Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?.  Journal of Moral Education ,  35 (2), 179-196.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation , University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2) . Harper & Row

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . University of Minnesota Press.

Rosen, B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and their treatment. In, Moral development, moral education, and Kohlberg. B. Munsey (Ed). (1980), pp. 232-263. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.

Walker, L. J., Pitts, R. C., Hennig, K. H., & Matsuba, M. K. (1995). Reasoning about morality and real-life moral problems.

Further Information

• BBC Radio 4: The Heinz Dilemma
• The Science of Morality
• Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development

What is an example of moral development theory in real life?

An example is a student who witnesses cheating on an important exam. The student is faced with the dilemma of whether to report the cheating or keep quiet.

A person at the pre-conventional level of moral development might choose not to report cheating because they fear the consequences or because they believe that everyone cheats.

A person at the conventional level might report cheating because they believe it is their duty to uphold the rules and maintain fairness in the academic environment.

A person at the post-conventional level might weigh the ethical implications of both options and make a decision based on their principles and values, such as honesty, fairness, and integrity, even if it may come with negative consequences.

This example demonstrates how moral development theory can help us understand how individuals reason about ethical dilemmas and make decisions based on their moral reasoning.

What are the examples of stage 6 universal principles?

Stage 6 of Kohlberg’s moral development theory, also known as the Universal Ethical Principles stage, involves moral reasoning based on self-chosen ethical principles that are comprehensive and consistent. Examples might include:

Equal human rights : Someone at this stage would believe in the fundamental right of all individuals to life, liberty, and fair treatment. They would advocate for and act according to these rights, even if it meant opposing laws or societal norms.

Justice for all : A person at this stage believes in justice for all individuals and would strive to ensure fairness in all situations. For example, they might campaign against a law they believe to be unjust, even if it is widely accepted by society.

Non-violence : A commitment to non-violence could be a universal principle for some at this stage. For instance, they might choose peaceful protest or civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws or societal practices.

Social contract : People at this stage might also strongly believe in the social contract, wherein individuals willingly sacrifice some freedoms for societal benefits. However, they also understand that these societal norms can be challenged and changed if they infringe upon the universal rights of individuals.

Respect for human dignity and worth : Individuals at this stage view each person as possessing inherent value, and this belief guides their actions and judgments. They uphold the dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of social status or circumstance.

What is the Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma?

The Heinz dilemma is a moral question proposed by Kohlberg in his studies on moral development. It involves a man named Heinz who considers stealing a drug he cannot afford to save his dying wife, prompting discussion on the moral implications and justifications of his potential actions.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development (6 Stages + Examples)

Have you ever wondered why little kids think sharing toys is a rule because "it's nice," while older students might believe it's right because "it's fair"? As we grow up, how we think about right and wrong changes greatly. This isn't just random; there's a pattern to it. A smart guy named Lawrence Kohlberg devised a way to explain this change, calling it the "Stages of Moral Development."

Imagine climbing a set of stairs. At the bottom, we might do things to avoid getting in trouble or to get a reward. As we go higher, we start to think about what others expect from us and what's generally accepted as right in society. And for some, at the very top, they might start to question and think deeply about these rules themselves.

This article will dive into these stages, helping you understand how our thinking evolves at different ages. It's like a roadmap to our moral growth , showing us how and why our views on right and wrong shift as we age. Let's take a journey together and explore these stages!

What Are Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development? 

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development is a theory proposed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), which outlines the different levels and stages of moral reasoning that individuals go through as they develop their understanding of right and wrong. There are 6 stages of development, divided into 3 levels.

Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on and revised the ideas of cognitive theorist Jean Piaget . Piaget’s work suggested that children’s morality changes over time as they move through stages of mental development.

In his interviews, Kohlberg employed Piaget’s method of questioning participants about moral dilemmas. He would tell stories with conflicting ideas representing two moral values and ask children whether these were right or wrong. Kohlberg was less interested in the answers themselves than in understanding the thinking process behind them. 

Based on the children’s responses, Kohlberg classified their moral reasoning into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. He further divided each level into two distinct stages.

Stages of Moral Development and Ages

Like Piaget's theory of moral development , Kohlberg believes that moral development occurs in stages, but he argues that it is a continuous process throughout a person's life. 

Let’s look at the characteristics of each of Kohlberg’s stages.

Pre-conventional Level

At the lowest level of moral development, children under nine have not yet internalized society’s conventions as to right or wrong. Adults fully determine the moral standards of young children. For example, they accept the rules made by authority figures, parents, or teachers. They base their moral reasoning on the external consequences of their actions, such as punishment. 

Heinz's dilemma is often used in the study of moral development, particularly in Kohlberg's theory of moral development. The dilemma goes something like this:

Heinz's wife is dying from a rare cancer; the only medication that can save her is extremely expensive. Heinz cannot afford the medication, so he breaks into a pharmacy to steal it. He is caught by the police and brought to court. The judge must decide what to do with Heinz.

At this level, a child faced with Heinz’s dilemma would say that the man shouldn't steal the drug because stealing is wrong, and he will end up in prison.

Stage 1) Obedience and punishment

The obedience and punishment stage is based on children’s desire to follow the rules created by authority figures. Their motivation is simply to avoid being punished. If an action is perceived as morally wrong, it is because punishment is possible. Morality is, at this stage, external to the self. Children suppose that rules are fixed and must be respected.

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on avoiding punishment or seeking reward. They follow rules to avoid physical punishment or loss of privileges but don't understand that rules are based on social norms or the need for social order.

Individuals at this stage may also have a limited perspective, unable to see things from another's point of view, and they may not consider the intentions or circumstances behind someone's actions. For example, a child at this stage might think that stealing a toy from a store is always wrong, regardless of the reason why the person did it or the consequences that might follow.

To identify Stage 1, look for individuals mainly focused on avoiding punishment or seeking rewards who may not yet fully understand the concept of social norms or the importance of considering other people's perspectives. They may also display a rigid and inflexible approach to moral decision-making.

Stage 2) Self-interest

As children mature, their motivation for displaying certain behaviors shifts from seeking external rewards to considering what they personally believe is in their best interest. This stage of moral reasoning is self-centered and shows little or no consideration of the needs of others. Children start realizing that rules are not absolute. People can have different perspectives, and there is more than one correct point of view.

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on their own self-interest and the exchange of favors. They begin to understand that others have their needs and wants and may be willing to negotiate to meet them.

Individuals at this stage may also display a more flexible approach to moral decision-making, recognizing that there are different perspectives and that the rules can be changed if they benefit everyone. For example, a child at this stage might think it's okay to take someone else's toy if they offer something else in exchange or convince the other person that it's a fair trade.

To identify Stage 2, look for individuals who are mainly focused on their own self-interest but also aware of others' needs and wants. They may display a more flexible approach to rules and be willing to negotiate to achieve their goals. They may also be more aware of the social exchange of favors and obligations.

Conventional Level

The conventional level of morality is typical of adolescents and adults who internalize moral standards. An individual’s sense of morality is increasingly based on interpersonal relationships. At this level, children continue to conform to the rules of authority figures. But although they understand that there are conventions dictating how they should behave, following the rules is not necessarily related to the prospective punishment. Above all, they wish to ensure good relationships with others.

When presented with Heinz's dilemma, some older children at the conventional level of moral development might argue that while stealing the drug can be justified to save his wife's life, Heinz should still face the consequences and go to prison for his actions.

Stage 3) Conformity

During the conformity stage, children’s actions are motivated by the approval of others. Morality arises from living up to the standards of a group, such as family or community. Older children will often do their best to be good group members. Their moral decisions are based on whether they would win the approval of individuals whose opinions matter to them. The intentions of their actions are important regardless of the outcomes. 

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on the expectations and approval of others, particularly those who are important to them. They begin to understand that good behavior is seen as what pleases others, and they want to be seen as a good person in the eyes of those who are important to them.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to take into account the feelings and perspectives of others and may seek to maintain positive relationships. For example, a child at this stage might think it's important to share toys with others so they will like them and want to play with them.

To identify Stage 3, look for individuals mainly focused on pleasing others and maintaining positive relationships. They may be more aware of social norms and expectations and may be more likely to take the perspective of others into account. They may also seek approval from authority figures and conform to social norms to gain approval.

Stage 4) Law and order

This stage is characterized by accepting rules because they are important in maintaining a functional society. Rules are the same for everyone, and it is essential that all members of society obey them. Moral reasoning goes beyond the need for individual approval of the conformity stage. Instead, morality is determined by what is best for most people. Individuals who obey law and authority and don’t challenge the established social order are perceived as good. 

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on a sense of duty to uphold social order and respect for authority. They begin to understand that social order depends on the rule of law and that laws must be respected to maintain social order.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to consider the broader social context and the greater good rather than just their own personal relationships or interests. For example, a person at this stage might think it's important to follow traffic laws, not just to avoid a ticket or to please others, but because it's necessary for public safety and the greater good.

To identify Stage 4, look for individuals mainly focused on upholding social order and respect for authority. They may have a strong sense of duty and obligation to follow the rules and maintain social order. They may also be more likely to consider the broader social context and the greater good when making moral decisions.

Kohlberg believes that most individuals don’t develop their reasoning beyond this stage of moral development, in which morality is still predominantly dictated from the outside.

Postconventional Level

According to Kohlberg , only 10-15% of the population can achieve the post-conventional level of moral development because abstract principles and values define the sense of morality. 

Those individuals who attain the highest level of moral development question whether what they see around them is good. There is an increasing sense of individuals being separate entities from society. Morality on this level comes from self-defined principles. Laws that are seen as unjust should be removed or changed. Disobeying rules is not necessarily wrong when they are incompatible with personal principles. 

Participants in Kohlberg’s experiment who have reached the post-conventional level would believe that stealing the drug from the chemist’s office was not wrong. For them, saving a life is more important than the law itself.

Stage 5) Social Contract 

Individuals at this stage of moral development understand that society is full of contrasting opinions and values that should be respected. Laws are regarded as flexible social contracts. Laws that don't serve the greater common good should be changed to better align with the collective interests of society. In this context, morality and individual rights take precedence over established laws.

At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on justice, democracy, and individual rights. They begin to understand that laws and social norms are not set in stone and can be changed if they do not promote the greater good or protect individual rights.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to consider different groups' perspectives and recognize the need for compromise and negotiation. For example, a person at this stage might think it's important to advocate for policies promoting equality and individual rights, even if it means challenging existing laws or social norms.

To identify Stage 5, look for individuals mainly focused on justice and rights. They may be more likely to challenge authority and advocate for change if they see laws or social norms as unjust or unfair. They may also be more aware of the perspectives of different groups and the need for compromise and negotiation to achieve the greater good.

Stage 6) Universal Ethical Principles

In the final stage of moral development, individuals construct their own moral principles, which might sometimes deviate from societal laws. Their moral reasoning becomes more abstract, rooted in universal ethical principles, as described by Kohlberg. These principles embrace notions such as equality (valuing everyone equally, irrespective of status or background), dignity (recognizing the inherent worth of every person), and respect (upholding others' rights and sentiments).

At this stage, individuals believe that laws should align with these universal principles. If laws are perceived as unjust based on these principles, they feel such laws can and should be challenged or disobeyed. However, Kohlberg believed that very few people consistently operate at this advanced stage.

Individuals at this stage are also more likely to take a principled, ethical approach to decision-making and may see themselves as part of a larger moral community. For example, a person at this stage might think it's important to fight against social injustices such as discrimination or environmental destruction, even if it means going against established laws or social norms.

To identify Stage 6, look for individuals mainly focused on universal ethical principles and willing to take personal risks to uphold them. They may be more likely to challenge established laws or social norms if they see them as unjust or harmful. They may also see themselves as part of a larger moral community and be motivated by a sense of responsibility to uphold ethical principles. It's worth noting that Kohlberg believed that few people actually reached this stage, which he saw as the highest stage of moral development.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development's Heinz Dilemma

Consider the following moral dilemma. A man named Heinz has a wife dying of a rare cancer. Heinz learns that a local chemist has invented a new drug that might save his wife's life. But he can’t afford the drug. Although he tries to borrow money from his friends and family, the amount is still insufficient. The chemist is not ready to lower the price either. After trying everything he could think of without success, Heinz breaks into the chemist’s office and steals the drug. Was this the right thing to do? 

Here is an example of how an individual may behave at each stage in Kohlberg's Stages:

Obedience and Punishment Stage 1 : An individual may say that Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is wrong, and he could get arrested.

Self-Interest Stage 2 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife because he is important to him, and he would want others to do the same for him if he were in a similar situation.

Conformity Stage 3 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug because he will be viewed as a good husband and respected by others for doing whatever he can to save his wife.

Law and Order Stage 4 : An individual may say that Heinz should not steal the drug because it's against the law, and breaking the law would undermine social order and respect for authority.

Social Contract Stage 5 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug because the right to life and the principle of fairness outweigh the property rights of the pharmacist who owns the drug.

Universal Ethical Principles Stage 6 : An individual may say that Heinz should steal the drug because it's the right thing to do, even if it means breaking the law and risking punishment. They may also argue that the ethical principle of valuing human life is more important than any legal or social norm.

Heinz’s dilemma is a famous example used by Lawrence Kohlberg to assess moral developmental levels. 

Is Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Theory Still Relevant Today?

Today, people reference Kohlberg's moral development stages when discussing communication, debate, and relating to others. But it's not always accepted in these discussions. 

Take this one Reddit user's take on the Jordan Peterson subreddit : 

"This is one psychologist's take on morality. It uses mortality, ethics and justice interchangeably, and hence lacks cohesion. Which is to be expected as morality is a deeply philosophical topic. It makes sense that a psychologist would have this sort of approach (which everyone acknowledges is just a reformatting of Jean Piaget's stages of childhood development).

I think Maslow's heiarchy of needs would have been a better map, looking at the general requirements in becoming moral, rather than treating morality as an ultimate ontological fact.

To put it more simplistically; knowing what people need to become moral - has more value, than judging others by their current stage of moral development as this chart seems to do.

Either way, systematizing morality may not be the smartest idea. Better to pursue ethics."

With its detailed delineation of children’s moral development, Kohlberg's theory has significantly impacted psychology and education. However, like many pioneering theories, aspects of Kohlberg's framework have been critiqued. Notably, Carol Gilligan , an ethicist and once Kohlberg’s research assistant, presented a key critique. She argued that Kohlberg's stages of moral development were male-centric and might not adequately represent moral reasoning in women.

Gilligan proposed that while men tend to have a justice-based perspective rooted in fairness, women more often adopt a care-based perspective, emphasizing interconnectedness and relationships. In her view, moral development should be understood with these different orientations, suggesting that morality isn't a one-size-fits-all concept but is influenced by gendered socialization and perspectives.

Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s theory has been largely criticized for its gender bias toward the white male American population. For his experiment, Kohlberg interviewed 72 boys in suburban Chicago between 10 and 16 years old. His research was, therefore, inevitably influenced by upper-middle-class male values and perspectives. 

What’s more, Kohlberg’s theory does not consider the role cultural differences might play in the development of moral reasoning. For example, Western cultures may have different moral philosophies than societies that give more importance to the community than personal rights. 

Questions about Age

Some researchers have had doubts about Kohlberg’s general conclusions after he questioned whether older children and adolescents could attain the latest stages of moral reasoning. Some recent studies have shown that children as young as six can already understand vague concepts of universal ethical principles. 

Kohlberg did not always tailor his experiments to present dilemmas relevant to the participant's experiences. The Heinz story might not be relatable to individuals who have never been married. As a result, Kohlberg’s findings might have been different if the situations the participants were asked to analyze were more age-appropriate. 

Lastly, Kohlberg’s theory suggests that certain types of moral reasoning are superior to others. Kohlberg supposes that justice is the most fundamental moral principle. He has been reproached for emphasizing justice while overlooking other values, such as compassion and care for others.

Related posts:

• Lawrence Kohlberg (Psychologist Biography)
• Piaget's Theory of Moral Development (4 Stages + Examples)
• Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• 53+ Deviance Examples in Sociology (Definition + Theories)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Developmental Psychology:

Developmental Psychology

Erikson's Psychosocial Stages

Trust vs Mistrust

Autonomy vs Shame

Initiative vs Guilt

Industry vs inferiority

Identity vs Confusion

Intimacy vs Isolation

Generativity vs Stagnation

Integrity vs Despair

Attachment Styles

Avoidant Attachment

Anxious Attachment

Secure Attachment

Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Piaget's Cognitive Development

Sensorimotor Stage

Object Permanence

Preoperational Stage

Concrete Operational Stage

Formal Operational Stage

Unconditional Positive Regard

Birth Order

Zone of Proximal Development

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Essays on Moral Development, by Lawrence Kohlberg

Essays on Moral Development, Volume One: The Philosophy of Moral Development. by Lawrence Kohlberg. Harper & Row. 441 pp. $21.95.

Lawrence Kohlberg is a Harvard psychologist who has been insisting for two decades that the study of children’s moral reasoning can guide society in distinguishing right from wrong. His work has been influential—it has supplied much of the impetus behind “moral education” courses that are appearing even in elementary schools. The present collection of essays is concerned with the moral and pedagogical consequences Kohlberg draws from his empirical findings about children, from cross-cultural studies, and from “longitudinal” studies of given subjects at different ages.

Kohlberg discerns six “stages of moral development.” The first four are uncontroversial, extending from the child’s obedience out of fear of punishment to the “my station and its duties” mentality attributed to J. Edgar Hoover. Stage 5, the “official morality of the U.S. Constitution,” recognizes obligations based on contract, plus basic rights like life and liberty. Stage 6—to which this book is a sustained hosannah—adds “justice,” interpreted as “rationally demonstrable universal ethical principles” based on “respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals.”

What distinguishes stage 6 from stage 5 is, in effect, the willingness to disobey laws that conflict with these principles. Kohlberg estimates the number of stage 6’s to be 5 percent of the American population, but his only sustained example of a 6 is Martin Luther King, Jr. Socrates sometimes rates a 6, but is elsewhere demoted to a “5B,” apparently for taking the laws of Athens too seriously. (Kohlberg repeatedly compares King with Socrates as a “moral teacher” executed by the society he made uncomfortable, as if James Earl Ray were a legally appointed executioner.) Lincoln and Gandhi are accorded 6’s in passing.

_____________

What makes a later stage a higher stage? Part of Kohlberg’s answer is the irreversibility of the sequence of stages: while most people become “fixed” at a stage lower than 6, no one ever retreats from a later stage to an earlier one. Ultimately, however, Kohlberg equates later with better because, he says, each stage resolves conflicts that remain unresolved at earlier stages. Thus, Kohlberg reports that his stage-5 respondents disagreed among themselves about whether a man may steal an expensive drug to save his wife’s life, whereas his stage-6 respondents unanimously approved of stealing the drug. Stage 6 is hence the summit of morality because it is the most “formally adequate,” “integrated” level of morality. Not only does it address every moral dilemma, but all who reach it will agree in their answers.

Kohlberg defends this patent absurdity—Socrates, King, Lincoln, and Gandhi would hardly have seen eye-to-eye about, say, homosexuality—by referring to John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice , “the newest great book of the liberal tradition,” which “systematically justifies” stage 6. In resting his own case on Rawls’s, Kohlberg is virtually asking the non-philosophical reader to accept his claims about stage 6 on faith. Still, the basic outlines of Kohlberg’s position are clear.

According to Rawls, when you truly apply the Golden Rule to a problem, you are not distracted by your own preferences or the natural human tendency to put your own interests first. The principles you come up with will be genuinely fair, or just, principles. Rawls’s basic idea is to devise a model situation in which people are really thinking along golden-rule lines. He has us picture rational egoists who have temporarily forgotten their actual places in society. In deliberating about principles that will govern their society, such self-regarding amnesiacs would imagine a principle’s impact on people of every status, and so not slight any person or position, however humble. And Rawls adds an extra twist: his egoists pay most heed to how the worst off will fare, since (for reasons Rawls never quite clarifies) each is obsessively afraid that he will turn out to be the worst off when the “veil of ignorance” lifts.

Kohlberg illustrates the supposedly computer-like operation of this “method of musical chairs” with the issue of capital punishment. Rawls’s model people would reject it, he says, because, while each recognizes the deterrent advantages of capital punishment, each thinks, “what if I were a murderer?” Each then realizes that the murderer would not want to be executed, and hence renounces capital punishment. Lest the reader accuse me of imputing to Kohlberg a position too preposterous for anyone to maintain, here are his own words: If we “assess the death penalty from the point of view of someone who takes into account the possibility of being a capital offender himself [we see that] the capital offender, obviously, would claim that he should be allowed to remain alive. . . . In short, at stage 6 the rational capital offender’s claim to life would be given priority over the claim of maximal protection from crime asserted by the representative ordinary citizen.”

Something has gone wrong. Kohlberg’s magical argument against capital punishment really works against any punishment; presumably he would repudiate parking tickets for according double-parkers insufficient respect. Kohlberg has apparently confused what one would want in a difficult situation with what one would claim he should be allowed to have. Were I a murderer in the electric chair I would hope for a pardon, a power failure, or anything else that would save me, but I would hardly suppose I had a “rational claim” to a right to live that offset the claims of innocents saved by my execution.

This confusion between what people would be willing to do and what they would claim a right to do skews Kohlberg’s understanding of the drug-stealing case, which he sees as a collision between “capitalist morality” and the “sacredness of life.” While it is true that I would stick at almost nothing to save my wife’s life, I would never claim a right on my part or my wife’s to do what I would do. Nor would I do those things to save a stranger, even though, on Kohlberg’s view, the issue involves a generalized right to life the stranger shares with my wife. (I think my attitude makes me a 3.)

Actually, far from resolving every hard problem, “equal respect under universal principles of justice” is an empty truism. Should Churchill warn Coventry about the planned Nazi bombing or remain silent to protect the secret that the British had cracked the Enigma code? Can British counterespionage frame an honorable U-boat captain to damage German morale? Any choice dooms someone, and avoiding the problem (“I don’t want anybody’s blood on my hands”) amounts to choosing to spare the captain and risk extra Allied lives. Whatever the solutions to such dilemmas, the incantation of “equal respect for everyone” will not reveal them.

Indeed, it quickly becomes clear that Kohlberg is just making up stage 6 as he goes along. He scales the peak of arbitrariness when he counsels a stage-6 wife dying of cancer to concur in her own mercy killing: “If the wife puts herself in the husband’s place, the grief she anticipates about her own death is more than matched by the grief a husband should feel at her pain.” Kohlberg does not disclose how to determine the pain the wife will feel, the pain the husband “should” feel, or, indeed, what has become of the “sacredness of life.”

In fact, there is no stage 6. Kohlberg fudges this by combining stages 5 and 6 in his statistics. Astonishingly, he admits in a candid paragraph that

our empirical findings do not clearly delineate a sixth stage. . . . None of our longitudinal subjects have reached the highest stage. Our examples of stage 6 come either from historical figures [conveniently unavailable for answering questionnaires] or from interviews with people who have extensive philosophic training. . . . Stage 6 is perhaps less a statement of an attained psychological reality than the specification of a direction in which, our theory claims, ethical development is moving.

This trumpery shows Kohlberg’s program of “moral education” for the instrument of propaganda it really is. Kohlberg’s proposal begins modestly enough, with Dewey’s insight that children learn best when challenged by problems that strain their current concepts. To this Kohlberg adds Piaget’s discovery that certain key concepts are learned only in a definite order of maturation. What results is a general educational strategy of helping children through natural cognitive stages by posing stimulating problems. Kohlberg now applies this to morals: since a child is disposed to pass through the levels of morality anyway, the teacher should boost him along with provocative tales about theft and murder.

Kohlberg dismisses the idea that schools, especially public schools, should leave ethics to others with the admonition that a “hidden moral curriculum”—of conformity—always lurks behind official postures of neutrality. But Kohlberg’s own pedagogy is anything but the Socratic midwife to a child’s autonomy. Those tales of mercy killings and the like, a “hidden moral curriculum” if there ever was one, are designed to push children along a specific policy agenda that has nothing to do with any natural bents, let alone with “rationally demonstrable universal ethical principles.”

Beneath the platitudes and the jargon, Kohlberg’s morality comes to a specious egalitarianism. It is hard to believe Kohlberg really thinks that any desire, however base or outrageous, deserves as much “respect”—i.e., satisfaction—as any other. But whatever “stage-6 morality” is, it is not synonymous with respect for persons as understood in the Kantian moral tradition Kohl-berg claims to be following. Kantian respect means allowing each person to choose his actions freely and to accept the consequences of his choices. Such respect has nothing to do with satisfying the desires of the autonomous beings who are said to deserve it.

After interviewing a captured Nazi, the hero of Nicholas Monsarrat’s autobiographical novel The Cruel Sea thinks to himself, “These people are not curable. We’ll just have to shoot them and hope for a better crop next time.” Hardly stage-6 thinking—which is why today I am alive to write this and you to read it.

The Diaspora Tragedy of Philip Roth

Joan Didion From the Couch

Brush Off Your Shakespeare

Scroll Down For the Next Article

Type and press enter

• More Networks

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

zennie / Getty Images

• Archaeology

• Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

Lawrence Kohlberg outlined one of the best-known theories addressing the development of morality in childhood. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which include three levels and six stages, expanded on and revised the ideas of Jean Piaget’s previous work on the subject.

Key Takeaways: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

• Lawrence Kohlberg was inspired by Jean Piaget’s work on moral judgment to create a stage theory of moral development in childhood.
• The theory includes three levels and six stages of moral thinking. Each level includes two stages. The levels are called preconventional morality, conventional morality, and postconventional morality.
• Since it was initially proposed, Kohlberg’s theory has been criticized for overemphasizing a Western male perspective on moral reasoning.

Jean Piaget's two-stage theory of moral judgment marked a divide between the way children younger than 10 and those 10 and older think about morality. While younger children looked at rules as fixed and based their moral judgments on consequences, older children’s perspectives were more flexible and their judgments were based on intentions.

However, intellectual development doesn’t end when Piaget’s stages of moral judgment ended, making it likely that moral development continued as well. Because of this, Kohlberg felt Piaget’s work was incomplete. He sought to study a range of children and adolescents in order to determine if there were stages that went beyond those proposed by Piaget.

Kohlberg’s Research Method

Kohlberg utilized Piaget’s method of interviewing children about moral dilemmas in his research. He would present each child with a series of such dilemmas and ask them their thoughts on each one to determine the reasoning behind their thinking.

For example, one of the moral dilemmas Kohlberg presented was the following:

“In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her… The druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about… half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: ‘No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.’ So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.”

After explaining this dilemma to his participants, Kohlberg would ask, “Should the husband have done that?” He then continued with a series of additional questions that would help him understand why the child thought Heinz was right or wrong to do what he did. After collecting his data, Kohlberg classified the responses into stages of moral development.

Kohlberg interviewed 72 boys in suburban Chicago for his study. The boys were 10, 13, or 16 years old. Each interview was approximately two hours long and Kohlberg presented each participant with 10 moral dilemmas during that time.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s research yielded three levels of moral development. Each level consisted of two stages, leading to six stages in total. People pass through each stage sequentially with the thinking at the new stage replacing the thinking at the previous stage. Not everyone reached the highest stages in Kohlberg's theory. In fact, Kohlberg believed that many didn’t move past his third and fourth stages.

Level 1: Preconventional Morality

At the lowest level of moral development individuals haven’t yet internalized a sense of morality. Moral standards are dictated by adults and the consequences of breaking the rules. Children nine years old and younger tend to fall into this category.

• Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation . Children believe the rules are fixed and must be obeyed to the letter. Morality is external to the self.
• Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange . Children begin to realize that the rules aren’t absolute. Different people have different perspectives and therefore there isn’t just one correct point of view.

Level 2: Conventional Morality

A majority of adolescents and adults fall into the middle level of conventional morality . At this level, people start to internalize moral standards but not necessarily to question them. These standards are based on the social norms of the groups a person is part of.

• Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships . Morality arises from living up to the standards of a given group, such as one's family or community, and being a good group member.
• Stage 4: Maintaining the Social Order . The individual becomes more aware of the rules of society on a broader scale. As a result, they become concerned with obeying laws and maintaining the social order.

Level 3: Postconventional Morality

If individuals reach the highest level of moral development , they start to question if what they see around them is good. In this case, morality stems from self-defined principles. Kohlberg suggested that only 10-15% of the population was able to achieve this level because of the abstract reasoning it required.

• Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights . Society should function as a social contract where the goal of each individual is to improve society as a whole. In this context, morality and individual rights like life and liberty may take precedence over specific laws.
• Stage 6: Universal Principles . People develop their own principles of morality even if they conflict with society’s laws. These principles must be applied to every individual equally.

Since Kohlberg initially proposed his theory, many criticisms have been leveled against it. One of the key issues other scholars take with the theory centers on the sample used to create it. Kohlberg focused on boys in a specific United States city. As a result, his theory has been accused of being biased towards men in Western cultures. Western individualist cultures may have different moral philosophies than other cultures. For example, individualist cultures emphasize personal rights and freedoms, while collectivist cultures emphasize what’s best for the community as a whole. Kohlberg’s theory does not take these cultural differences into account.

In addition, critics like Carol Gilligan have maintained that Kohlberg’s theory conflates morality with an understanding of rules and justice, while overlooking concerns such as compassion and care. Gilligan believed the emphasis on impartially judging conflicts between competing parties overlooked the female perspective on morality, which tended to be contextual and derived from an ethics of compassion and concern for other people.

Kohlberg’s methods were also criticized. The dilemmas he used weren’t always applicable to children at the age of 16 and under. For example, the Heinz dilemma presented above might not be relatable to children who had never been married. Had Kohlberg focused on dilemmas more reflective of his subjects' lives, his results may have been different. Also, Kohlberg never examined if moral reasoning actually reflected moral behavior. Therefore, it’s not clear if his subjects’ actions fell in line with their ability to think morally.

• Cherry, Kendra. “Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development.” Verywell Mind , 13 March 2019. https://www.verywellmind.com/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-developmet-2795071
• Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications . 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall. 2005.
• Kohlberg, Lawrence. “The Development of Children’s Orientation Toward a Moral Order: I. Sequence in the Development of Moral Thought.” Vita Humana , vol. 6, no. 1-2, 1963, pp. 11-33. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-05739-001
• McLeod, Saul. “Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.” Simply Psychology , 24 October 2013. https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
• Gilligan's Ethics of Care
• How Psychology Defines and Explains Deviant Behavior
• An Introduction to Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
• The Montessori Method and Sensitive Periods for Learning
• Freud: Id, Ego, and Superego Explained
• Emerging Adulthood: The "In-Between" Developmental Stage
• What Is Object Permanence?
• Oedipus Complex
• What Is the Zone of Proximal Development? Definition and Examples
• Anna Freud, Founder of Child Psychoanalysis
• 5 Psychology Studies That Will Make You Feel Good About Humanity
• Information Processing Theory: Definition and Examples
• The Stages of Adlerian Therapy
• What Is Classical Conditioning?
• What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
• Dream Interpretation According to Psychology

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development: Stages & Examples

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

Lawrence Kohlberg devised a theory of moral development which postulates that moral reasoning passes through six stages from early childhood to adulthood.

Kohlberg’s stages are sorted into three discontinuous levels : preconventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality.

Each stage involves a more advanced level of reasoning that coincides with cognitive development and life experiences.

Kohlberg’s theory focuses on a person’s logic about what is (and is not) moral behavior. The actual behavior is not that important. The emphasis is on how a person reaches their conclusion of what is right and wrong. 

To understand a person’s level of moral development, Kohlberg would describe a situation that presents a moral dilemma. By carefully analyzing the reasoning and thought processes of the person’s response, Kohlberg could identify their level of moral development.

Stages of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Level 1: preconventional morality.

The preconventional morality level is at the most basic level of moral development. In this level, moral reasoning is based on externally controlled rules that are handed down from authority figures.

The goal in a moral dilemma is to avoid punishment or receive an award. So, if a behavior leads to punishment, then it is bad. If the action leads to a reward, then it is good.

Preconventional morality lasts until around the age of 8 or 9. There is a great deal of variation about when it ends due to the fact that children’s’ cognitive skills develop at different rates and they can have vastly different experiences with adults and other children.

Stage 1: Obedience/Punishment Orientation

At very young ages children define the morality of a behavior as a direct function of its consequences.

In this childish reasoning, behavior that is punished is not moral, and behavior that is rewarded is moral. Children believe that people should obey rules so they can avoid punishment. Rules are absolute and inflexible.

Extraneous factors involved in a situation have no relevance because children simply don’t have the cognitive skills to conduct that reasoning.

In this stage, behaviorist approaches to teaching such as operant conditioning and negative reinforcement are highly effective.

Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange

At this stage, children will begin to understand that different people may have different perspectives regarding the same situation.

Rules are not absolute because there isn’t just one correct point of view. Actions in moral dilemmas are based on self-interest, not just strict adherence to external rules.

Children also begin to understand the benefits of cooperation and positive social relations. By doing something nice for another child, they could benefit by means of reciprocity.

Go Deeper: 10 Preconventional Morality Examples

Level 2: Conventional Morality

Conventional moral reasoning begins to emerge around the age of 10 or 11 and is characterized by accepting the rules of various social groups.

People begin to internalize moral standards from society and respected adults, in addition to various social groups to which the person belongs. Children will stay at this level until they are around 15 years old.

Stage 3: Establishing Good Interpersonal Relationships

At this stage, moral decisions are based on how they affect interpersonal relationships . 

There is an emphasis on meeting the expectations of social groups and being seen as a “good” member of that group. People at this stage consciously engage in prosocial behavior . Conformity and receiving the approval of others are highly valued.

Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order

Individuals now become less concerned about interpersonal consequences and more focused on a broader perspective of maintaining social order.

Rules and laws are seen as valuable because they allow a society to function smoothly. Laws to maintain social order are now considered more important than how behavior affects interpersonal relations.

Children begin to embrace the concept of social roles and start to see where they fit in a social hierarchy.

Go Deeper: 10 Conventional Morality Examples

Level 3: Postconventional Morality

This level of moral reasoning is defined in terms of abstract principles that have much broader relevance to civilization.

The rationale underlying morality is not confined to his or her own society and takes into account the perspective of individuals outside of society.

An understanding of universal ethical principles begins to form. This stage of moral reasoning may emerge in early adulthood, but not all individuals will reach either stage 5, and certainly not stage 6.

Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights

Laws are regarded as a social contract for the greater good, but are not perfect.

A higher-order conception of morality and individual rights may override specific laws. 

People begin to consider the different values and beliefs of others when defining morality. If laws violate human rights, then alternatives should be devised.  

Stage 6: Universal Principles

In this final stage of moral reasoning, people develop their own concept of morality based on abstract reasoning and universal ethical principles.

Society’s laws may or may not be consistent with, or uphold, those universal principles. When they do not, a person at this stage may be willing to go against society and pay severe negative consequences to defend universal principles to see that they are equally applied to all.

Go Deeper: 10 Postconventional Morality Examples

Strengths of Kohlberg’s Theory

1. consistent stage progression.

There have been many studies that have examined moral reasoning from childhood to early adulthood.

Generally speaking, those studies have supported the contention that people progress through the stages in the same sequence prescribed by Kohlberg.

Kohlberg’s own follow-up studies and those of colleagues (Colby et. al., 1983) also supported his contention that most people passed through stages consistently, although most people did not reach stages 5 and 6.

2. A Consistent Research Technique

Kohlberg relied on one particular research technique for a great deal of his work.

This involved reading a description of moral dilemmas and then asking research participants to respond to a series of questions. Although this technique is not perfect and is often described as a flaw, it is also a valuable tool.

By keeping the stories the same across several of his own studies, and by providing those stories to other researchers, Kohlberg’s technique allows for a comparison of results across studies by different researchers. This is a crucial need for scientific replication that should not be overlooked.

3. Supported by Brain Research 

There has been a substantial amount of research linking moral behavior with deficiencies in areas of the brain responsible for executive function , located in the frontal lobe (see Han, 2002 for a review).

Individuals with neurological issues are more likely to commit crimes due to having poor control over their behavior. There is also a clear link between hyperactivity, attentional control disorders, and disruptive behaviors in school settings.

These lines of research support the notion that moral reasoning, or impairment of moral reasoning, is linked to anti-social behavior.

Related: 5 Types of Childhood Development

Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory

1. western cultural bias.

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is heavily influenced by an individualistic cultural bias that values individual rights over broader societal norms.

These values are ingrained in many Western cultures. However, Eastern cultures are more collectivist and value the whole of society over the rights of individuals.

Collectivist cultures have different perspectives on morality which are not consistent with Kohlberg’s theory.

2. Gender Bias

Kohlberg only included males in his studies on moral development. This means the sample was biased and not representative of the population.

That is a significant methodological flaw. Furthermore, as Gilligan (1977) has pointed out, men and women have different priorities when making moral decisions. Men base their conception of morality on abstract principles centering on law and justice.

However, women are more likely to make moral decisions based on principles of compassion and social welfare.

See More: Gender Bias Examples

3. Moral Reasoning may not lead to Moral Behavior

Providing rationale for a behavior in the safety of a room where someone describes a moral dilemma is far different from actually being in a situation.

What we think we would do in a situation and what we might actually do in a real situation where emotions are much more intense may be different.

Moral reasoning does not always lead to moral behavior. In the words of Han (2022), “The most fundamental critique is that the result of moral reasoning per se does not necessarily result in moral motivation, and finally, actual moral behavior” (p. 2).

Similarities between Kohlberg and Piaget

There are a number of similarities between Kohlberg’s and Piaget’s theories .

Firstly, both identify moral reasoning as developing in a sequential order where the thinking of younger children is simpler and more concrete than older children and young adults. Both postulate that this sequence is fixed and stable.

Secondly, both scholars relied on similar research techniques that involved analyzing a child’s reaction to a moral dilemma. This is a technique that provides standardization of the research methodology that allows for the comparison of research from various scholars.

Thirdly, both Kohlberg and Piaget are more interested in the rationale and logic that underly the child’s response than the actual behavior they say should be engaged. It is not so much the action chosen that is important as the reason given to justify the action.

In this way, both researchers were able to understand the child’s moral reasoning and develop a much deeper understanding of moral development.

Fourthly, both found similar patterns of moral reasoning across age. For example, Kohlberg’s preconventional level describes the child’s reasoning as being influenced by external rules from authority figures, namely parents and teachers. Similarly, Piaget’s stage of heteronomous morality describes a child’s moral reasoning as being defined externally.

Both scholars found that young children determine morality based on the consequences of an action. A behavior is good if it is rewarded and it is bad if it is punished, regardless of the actual act.

Learn about Four other Social Development Theories

Differences between Kohlberg and Piaget

There are some differences between the two stage-based theories as well.

For instance, Kohlberg believed that very young children internalized rules given by authority figures such as parents and teachers.

However, Piaget stated that internalizing rules and morality does not come until a later age. Younger children simply accept rules as absolutes that must be followed, but do not necessarily accept the rules as their own.

Piaget’s study of the “moral behavior” of children is sometimes described as starting with toddlers, while Kohlberg’s theory of moral development does not begin until the age of 5. 

Although Piaget includes this very early age in his discussion of morality, he does not believe the term “morality” is reflective of a toddler’s actions. In fact, he states clearly that the practice of behavior which looks moral occurs long before the consciousness of morality (Piaget, 1932).

Another difference is in regard to the degree of detail between the two theories. While Piaget identified two stages of moral reasoning, Kohlberg’s theory identifies a total of six.

In this way, Kohlberg’s theory is more elaborate and offers a more nuanced understanding of how moral reasoning develops through the years.

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88 , 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.1

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 48 (1-2, Serial No. 200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 (6), 993–1006.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review , 47(4), 481-517.

Han, H. (2022). Cerebellum and emotion in morality. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1378 , 179-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99550-8_12

Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel? Journal of Moral Education , 35 (2), 179-196.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation , University of Chicago.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

Prinz, J. (2006). The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philosophical Explorations, 9 (1), 29-43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790500492466

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008). Framing moral intuitions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology, Vol. 2: The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 18 Adaptive Behavior Examples

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Medical Books

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 1) Hardcover – January 1, 1981

• Print length 441 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Harper & Row
• Publication date January 1, 1981
• ISBN-10 0060647604
• ISBN-13 978-0060647605
• See all details

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Harper & Row; First Edition (January 1, 1981)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 441 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0060647604
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0060647605
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.25 pounds
• #2,179 in Medical General Psychology
• #13,566 in Psychology & Counseling

About the author

Lawrence kohlberg.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 64% 0% 36% 0% 0% 64%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 64% 0% 36% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 64% 0% 36% 0% 0% 36%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 64% 0% 36% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 64% 0% 36% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people decide what is right and what is wrong. In order to explore this area, he read a story containing a moral dilemma to boys of different age groups. In the story, a man is trying to obtain an expensive drug that his wife needs in order to treat her cancer. The man has no money and no one will loan him the money he requires. He begs the pharmacist to reduce the price, but the pharmacist refuses. So, the man decides to break into the pharmacy to steal the drug. Then Kohlberg asked the children to decide whether the man was right or wrong in his choice. Kohlberg was not interested in whether they said the man was right or wrong, he was interested in finding out how they arrived at such a decision. He wanted to know what they thought made something right or wrong.

Pre-conventional Moral Development

The youngest subjects seemed to answer based on what would happen to the man as a result of the act. For example, they might say the man should not break into the pharmacy because the pharmacist might find him and beat him. Or they might say that the man should break in and steal the drug and his wife will give him a big kiss. Right or wrong, both decisions were based on what would physically happen to the man as a result of the act.  This is a self-centered approach to moral decision-making. He called this most superficial understanding of right and wrong pre-conventional moral development.

Conventional Moral Development

Middle childhood boys seemed to base their answers on what other people would think of the man as a result of his act. For instance, they might say he should break into the store, and then everyone would think he was a good husband. Or, he shouldn’t because it is against the law. In either case, right and wrong is determined by what other people think. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies with the law. This he called conventional moral development.

Post-conventional Moral Development

Older children were the only ones to appreciate the fact that this story has different levels of right and wrong. Right and wrong are based on social contracts established for the good of everyone or on universal principles of right and wrong that transcend the self and social convention. For example, the man should break into the store because, even if it is against the law, the wife needs the drug and her life is more important than the consequences the man might face for breaking the law. Or, the man should not violate the principle of the right of property because this rule is essential for social order. In either case, the person’s judgment goes beyond what happens to the self. It is based on a concern for others; for society as a whole or for an ethical standard rather than a legal standard. This level is called post-conventional moral development because it goes beyond convention or what other people think to a higher, universal ethical principle of conduct that may or may not be reflected in the law. Notice that such thinking (the kind supreme justices do all day in deliberating whether a law is moral or ethical, etc.) requires being able to think abstractly. Often this is not accomplished until a person reaches adolescence or adulthood.

Consider your own decision-making processes. What guides your decisions? Are you primarily concerned with your personal well-being? Do you make choices based on what other people will think about your decision? Or are you guided by other principles? To what extent is this approach guided by your culture?

Lifespan Development Copyright © by Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Kohlberg, Lawrence

• Reference work entry
• Cite this reference work entry

• John Snarey 3 &
• Andrea Green 4  

847 Accesses

1 Citations

Introduction

American developmental psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg spent his life in pursuit of universal justice. “Kohlberg opened the eyes of psychologists and educators to the fact that people’s moral thinking changes as they grow up, and that these changes continue to follow predictable stages of development as they grow older” [ 12 ]. He is best known among psychologists for his six-stage model of moral cognition and development. Kohlberg also developed three methods of moral education: adult role models as moral exemplars, peer interaction through moral dilemma discussions, and democratic participation in a morally grounded democratic school community, which he referred to as Just Community programs.

Laurence (original spelling) Kohlberg was born in Bronxville, NY, an affluent suburb of New York City, on October 25, 1927. His father, Alfred Kohlberg, was a wealthy textile importer with production facilities in China during World War II (Sino-Japanese War) and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education . New York: Macmillan.

Google Scholar  

Herzstein, R. E. (2008). The extremist and the redeemer: Alfred Kohlberg, his son Lawrence, and the worlds they made , 1887–1987. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of thinking and choices in years 10 to 16 . PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order: Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 6 , 11–33.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kohlberg, L. (1968). The child as a moral philosopher. Psychology Today, 7 , 25–30l.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: The philosophy of moral development: Moral Stages and the idea of justice (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L., & Turiel, E. (1971). Moral development and moral education. In G. Lesser (Ed.), Psychology and educational practice . Chicago: Scott Foresman.

Locke, D. (1986). A psychologist among the philosophers. In S. Modigil & C. Modigil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy . Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child . New York: The Free Press.

Power, F., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s approach to moral education . New York: Columbia University Press.

Snarey, J., & Samuelson, P. (2008). Moral education in the cognitive developmental tradition. Handbook on moral and character education . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Emory University, Psychology Building Faculty Box, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

John Snarey

Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

Andrea Green

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Snarey, J., Green, A. (2011). Kohlberg, Lawrence. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1594

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_1594

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Advanced Search
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• About PhilArchive
• Frequently Asked Questions
• OAI Handler
• Journal policies
• Code of conduct
• Create an account

The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice

Archival history, reprint years.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethical Dilemma — The Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Moral Development Stages

The Criticisms of Kohlberg's Moral Development Stages

• Categories: Ethical Dilemma

About this sample

Words: 511 |

Published: Aug 1, 2024

Words: 511 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 746 words

2 pages / 999 words

1 pages / 585 words

1 pages / 482 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethical Dilemma

Counseling adolescents presents ethical issues. Many children and teenager who enter counseling have not yet reach the age of majority, reside in families that include other people with emotional difficulties, and attend school. [...]

Social dilemmas happen when the members of a group, culture, or society are in possible conflict over the establishment and use of shared “public goods”. Public goods are benefits that are shared by a community and that everyone [...]

Ethics is defined as the comprehension of what is right and what is wrong within the moral context and different cultures and communities have a different perception of right and wrong depending on their individual regulations, [...]

The development of technology is aimed at making our life easier. Whether in the medical field where advance technology may be able to detect early signs of diseases or in the automotive sector where humans can travel by car [...]

"Lather and Nothing Else" by Hernando Tellez is a captivating short story that explores the internal conflict of the protagonist, the barber. In this essay, we will delve into an in-depth character analysis of the barber, [...]

Ethical choices are inherent in nearly every decision we make, varying in their prominence and complexity. While some decisions distinctly manifest their ethical nature, such as the choice between taking a life or sparing it, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free