Moral Reasoning

374
doing
2
learn
by
Chapter 9
Human Development
HANGING OUT, SEPARATELY Ethnic identity is
that part of our personal identity that reflects the racial, religious, or
cultural group to which we belong. Ethnic
identity often leads people to interact
mainly with others who share that same
identity. To what extent is this true of
you? You can get a rough idea by jotting
down the ethnicity of all the people you
chose to spend time with over the past
week or so.
independence, but late adolescence is also a time when many people become more
aware of their obligations to their families (Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002). By the time they
are twenty-one, about half of the adolescents studied have resolved the identity crisis
in a way that is consistent with their self-image and the historical era in which they are
living. They enter young adulthood with self-confidence. Basically the same people who
entered adolescence, they now have more mature attitudes and behavior, more consistent goals and values, and a clearer idea of who they are (Savin-Williams & Demo,
1984). Many have become more aware of their obligations to their families (Fuligni &
Pedersen, 2002). For those who fail to resolve identity issues—either because they
avoided the identity crisis by accepting the identity their parents set for them or because
they postponed dealing with the crisis and remain uncommitted and lacking in direction—there are often problems ahead (Lange & Byrd, 2002).
Moral Reasoning
Adolescents are able to develop an identity partly because, according to Piaget’s theory,
they have entered the formal operational period, which allows them to think logically
and reason about abstract concepts. Adolescents often find themselves applying these
advanced cognitive skills to questions of morality.
To examine how people think about
morality, psychologists have asked them how they would resolve moral dilemmas, and
why. Perhaps the most famous of these is the “Heinz dilemma,” in which people must
decide whether a man named Heinz should steal a rare and unaffordably expensive
drug in order to save his wife from cancer.
By posing moral dilemmas such as this one, Lawrence Kohlberg found that the reasons given for moral choices change systematically and consistently with age (Kohlberg
& Gilligan, 1971). Young children make moral judgments that differ from those of older
children, adolescents, or adults. Kohlberg proposed that moral reasoning develops in
six stages, which are summarized in Table 9.3. These stages, he said, are not tightly
linked to a person’s chronological age. Instead, there is a range of ages for reaching each
stage, and not everyone reaches the highest level.
Stage 1 and Stage 2 moral judgments, which are most typical of children under the
age of nine, tend to be selfish in nature. Kohlberg called this level of moral reasoning
preconventional, because it is not based on the conventions or rules that usually guide
social interactions in society. People at this level of moral development are mainly concerned with avoiding punishment or following rules when it is to their own advantage.
At the conventional level of moral reasoning, Stages 3 and 4, people care about other
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning
preconventional Referring to moral
reasoning that is not based on the conventions or rules that guide social interactions in a society.
conventional Referring to moral reasoning that reflects a concern about
other people, as well as the belief that
morality consists of following rules and
conventions.
375
Adolescence
TA B L E
9.3
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral
Development
Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning describe differences in how people think
about moral issues. Here are some examples
of answers that people at different stages
of development might give to the “Heinz
dilemma” described in the text. This
dilemma is more realistic than you might
think. In 1994, a man was arrested for robbing a bank after being turned down for a
loan to pay for his wife’s cancer treatments.
Stage
Preconventional
1
2
Conventional
3
4
Postconventional
5
6
What Is Right?
Should Heinz Steal
the Drug?
Obeying and avoiding
punishment from a
superior authority
Making a fair exchange, a
good deal
“Heinz should not steal the
drug, because he will be
jailed.”
“Heinz should steal the
drug, because his wife will
repay him later.”
Pleasing others and getting
their approval
“Heinz should steal the
drug, because he loves his
wife and because she and
the rest of the family will
approve.”
“Heinz should steal the
drug for his wife, because
he has a duty to care for
her,” or “Heinz should not
steal the drug, because
stealing is illegal.”
Doing your duty,
following rules and social
order
Respecting rules and laws,
but recognizing that they
may have limits
Following universal ethical
principles, such as justice,
reciprocity, equality, and
respect for human life and
rights
“Heinz should steal the
drug, because life is more
important than property.”
“Heinz should steal the
drug because of the
principle of preserving and
respecting life.”
people. They think that morality consists of following rules and conventions such as
duty to the family, to marriage vows, and to the country. The moral reasoning of children and adolescents from nine to nineteen is most often at this level. Stages 5 and 6
represent the highest level of moral reasoning, which Kohlberg called postconventional
because it occurs after conventional reasoning. Moral judgments at this level are based
on personal standards or universal principles of justice, equality, and respect for human
life, not just on the demands of authority figures or society. People who have reached
this level view rules and laws as arbitrary but respect them because they protect human
welfare. They believe that individual rights can sometimes justify violating these laws if
the laws become destructive. People do not usually reach this level until sometime after
the end of adolescence. Stage 6 is seen only rarely, in extraordinary individuals. Studies
of Kohlberg’s stages have generally supported the sequence he proposed (Turiel, 2006).
postconventional Referring to moral
reasoning that reflects moral judgments
based on personal standards or universal principles of justice, equality, and respect for human life.
Limitations of Kohlberg’s Stages Do Kohlberg’s stages appear across cultures?
In general, yes. Forty-five studies in twenty-seven cultures from Alaska to Zambia
showed that people do tend to make upward progress through Kohlberg’s stages, without reversals (Snarey, 1987). Stages 5 and 6, however, did not always appear. Further,
the moral judgments made in some cultures do not always fit neatly into Kohlberg’s
stages. For example, some people in collectivist cultures, such as Papua New Guinea,
Taiwan, and Israeli kibbutzim, explained their answers to moral dilemmas by pointing
to the importance of the community. And people in India included in their moral reasoning the importance of acting in accordance with one’s caste (social class) and with