Conventional Level
Conventional Level
The conventional level includes Stage Three (good boy/girl morality) and Stage Four (authority, laws, and social order). These are conventional stages because resolutions to dilemmas reflect the individual’s concerns for group or societal norms, conventions, and/or laws. At this level, the individual approaches a moral problem from a “member-of-society” perspective, taking into consideration the moral norms of a group of known others (family, community, etc.) or of society at large (the culture one resides in). The person acts not just to avoid punishment or to gain reward as in the previous pre-conventional stages, but strives to live up to the standards and expectations as a productive member of society (to be a good family member, worker, citizen, etc.). In other words, the person wants to be valued in the eyes of the group of significant others (Stage Three) or to be a good member of society (Stage Four). Kohlberg considered that reasoning at this level usually arises during adolescence (formal operations), and remains dominant in the reasoning of most adults.
Stage Three: Good-Boy/Good-Girl Morality
Stage Three marks entry into Kohlberg’s conventional level of moral reasoning. This stage begins to develop during pre-adolescence and depends on emerging formal operations marking a shift from the concrete perspective of the individual to the more abstract perspective of a group of significant others. Moral reasoning at this stage primarily focuses on the concern for what a group of known others would think in similar situations (e.g. peers, family members, social groups, etc.). The desire is to maintain good relations and for one to be thought of as a “good person” become paramount. Taking a group perspective is crucial to the development of moral reasoning because it allows the person to perceive how the group will react to one’s dealings with other people. It is a mature perspective because it is an adequate model for dealing with most conflicts that arise among people who know each other.
Stage Four: Authority, Laws, and Social Order
At Stage Four, the person takes the perspective of the social system in which he or she is a member of. This stage includes an increasingly abstract perspective of the society at large with primary concerns about adherence to the standards (laws) of the social system and the desire to be a “good member” of society. This includes the ability to take the perspective of an entire social system in contrast to the perspective of the immediate group of others. It involves greater cognitive ability because of the requirement to keep in mind the interests of each constitutive group and compare these to the interests of the larger social system. The ability to view social problems from the perspective of the whole system provides a new basis for moral reasoning.
Stage Four reasoning begins to develop in mid-adolescence and often proves to be the highest stage to which adults develop. It is a mature stage because it adequately handles societal as well as interpersonal issues. However, Kohlberg found that Stage Four is not adequate for dealing with situations in which a system of laws or beliefs comes into conflict with protection of basic rights. If a person lives in a society in which the legal system systematically denies to some people basic human rights, should he agree that to preserve the legal and social order, he ought not to violate what he considers to be unjust laws?
Kohlberg found that stage four reasoning has no adequate response to this question. While people at Stage Four may argue for working within the system for change, if the system itself is unjust, they may be forced to choose between adherence and dissent. Kohlberg thought that within the structure of Stage Four reasoning, no persuasive criteria exist for when to choose dissent over adherence. He found that the post-conventional stages were more suited to deal with such conflicts.
III. Post-Conventional Level
The post-conventional level includes Stage Five (contractual-legalistic) and Stage Six (universal ethics). At this level, individuals resolve moral dilemmas based on concern for individual conscience and basic human rights. The post-conventional, or principled, stages of five and six are the most controversial areas of Kohlberg’s theory. Less empirical data are available for these than for the other stages and thus are questioned more seriously by researchers.
The individual in the post-conventional level approaches a moral problem from a “prior-to-society” perspective. In other words, they see beyond the given norms and laws of their own society and consider principles upon which any good and just society should be based. This perspective is more often that of people who have envisioned and advocated for utopian or revolutionary societies. Examples include people like the founding fathers of the United States, Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, etc.
The post-conventional level is the rarest of the three levels. If it arises at all, it is during mature adulthood and characterizes the reasoning of only a minority of highly educated adults. People adopting this perspective think in the purely formal categories of what would be the best solution for all involved in a moral dilemma. Reasoning is based on advanced and fully consolidated formal operations.
Stage Five: Contractual-Legalistic
At Stage Five, the individual attempts to keep from violating the rights of others; makes contracts and tries to keep them; and takes the perspective of all of the individuals involved in the moral dilemmas. Kohlberg called Stage Five reasoning a law-making perspective. For example, the constitution of the United States represents a social contract that was designed by individuals who took a Stage Five perspective. This perspective asks, “What are the laws upon which any just society should be based.”
Stage Five is a direct outgrowth of relativism (the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute). It incorporates the relativists’ perspective that values are relative to one’s group, but seeks a principle to bridge these differences. In other words, the individual may recognize that the values of some societies violate basic human rights but seeks a solution to work with governments of these societies to draw up a social contract, or compromise that might result in protection of those whose rights are being violated. For example, governments of two societies might negotiate a contract that offers financial assistance to a society in exchange for improved human rights practices (e.g. educating female children, clamping down on human sex trafficking or the drug trade). In this case, members of both societies have their own interests to protect, but may come to an agreement and draw up and sign a mutually binding contract. Such contracts usually represent a compromise of some sort, in that each person freely comes to the agreement but in the process gives up something in order to gain something. There is nothing sacred about the contract itself. However, each party is obligated to abide by it because it represents the best hope of legitimately satisfying each person’s rights and needs.
In Stage Five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those who do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (8). This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic governments are ostensibly based on Stage Five reasoning.
Stage Six: Universal Ethics
At this stage, the individual recognizes the importance of adhering to societal laws, except when those laws violate basic human rights. Thus, when there is a conflict between laws and human rights, the Stage Six choice is in favor of protecting human rights even if doing so means breaking the law. The person now acts in accordance with individual conscience, but not before considering the impact of his or her decision on society in general. The principles of pacifism, conscientious objection, and civil disobedience are in accordance with Stage Six reasoning.
Stage Six is very idealistic and even Kohlberg had trouble defining this stage as it requires a nearly perfectly unbiased consciousness to achieve. Additionally Kohlberg theorized that functioning in this stage often puts the life of the individual in jeopardy. For example, Martin Luther King was assassinated while fighting for the rights of African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. A more recent example is Malala Yousafzai, the young girl from Pakistan who was shot in the head by the Taliban, and survived, for promoting the education of young women.
Kohlberg also failed to find any evidence that any individual has fully functioned at Stage Six. Current moral researchers on Kohlberg’s theory have consolidated stages five and six as one advanced stage of moral reasoning. Given these, evidence suggests that individuals at the highest stages of moral reasoning only achieve fifty percent of Stage Five, meaning they are grounded in both the most common form of adult moral reasoning (Stage Four) with some ability to function in Stage Five when considering issues of societal laws that concern basic human rights. These can be difficult and conflicting decisions to make. Recent examples can include the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, the ethics of stem cell research using embryos, or the ongoing debate over the right for women to have abortions. If these issues spark a conflict within you or strong feelings on either side of the issue, then you can imagine how difficult making moral decisions at this level can be.
Characteristics of Kohlberg’s Stages
Much like Piaget, Kohlberg developed his stage theory with the follows concepts:
Stages are structured wholes, or organized systems of thought. That is, individuals tend to be consistent in level of moral judgment across situations according to the current stage they are in. For example, a child in stage one of moral reasoning will make decisions consistent with that stage just as a child in Piaget’s concrete operations stage will think within the cognitive limitations of concrete reasoning.
Stages form an invariant sequence. Just as in Piaget’s stages, a person advances in each of Kohlberg’s stages in sequential order. For example, just as a child in concrete operations moves to the next stage of formal operations, one must first complete Kohlberg’s lower level stages before advancing into higher stages.
Stages are hierarchical integrations. Moral reasoning at higher stages includes the ability to understand moral reasoning at all lower stages. For example, a stage five person can understand the moral reasoning of stages one through four because they have passed through these stages previously. Additionally, individuals will prefer reason at the highest stage available to them, but would find it difficult to understand any stage higher than their own. This is the same with Piaget’s cognitive stages where a child in concrete operations would not be able to understand the abstract reasoning of formal operations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although mature moral reasoning is only one factor that accounts for moral behavior, the cognitive-developmental approach focuses on moral reasoning for several reasons:
Although mature moral reasoning is only one factor that accounts for moral behavior, it appears to be the single-most important or influential factor so far that accounts for moral behavior.
While other factors influence moral behavior, moral reasoning is the only distinctive moral factor in moral behavior. For example, while “will” might be an important factor in moral behavior, it is not distinctively moral. It becomes moral only when it is informed by mature moral judgment.
Moral judgment change is long-range and irreversible—a higher stage is never lost. On the other hand, moral behavior is mainly situational and can be reversible or lost in new situations.
Case Study: The School Play
The eighth graders at Fairview Middle School are sharply divided into two groups, the “popular” ones and the “unpopular” ones. The popular students have little time or tolerance for their low-status peers, and a few of them regularly pick on a small, friendless boy named William, usually by ridiculing him but occasionally by physically poking or shoving him.
Justifiably concerned about students’ disrespectful behaviors toward certain classmates—and especially concerned about the bullying—members of Fairview’s English department suggest that the annual eighth-grade play take a different form this year. Rather than holding tryouts and selecting only a handful of students as cast members (as has been done in previous years), all 103 eighth graders will participate in some way, perhaps in the cast or perhaps in scenery construction, costume design, lighting, or marketing.
A humorous, two-act melodrama is selected, complete with a handsome but clueless hero, a resourceful heroine, a dastardly villain, and several other central characters, along with a 10-member chorus that will provide the occasional cheering and booing any good melodrama requires. The often-bullied William is chosen to play Lucifer Nastybuns, the dastardly villain.
The students and many of their teachers work on the production throughout late winter and early spring. The sheer ambitiousness of the project and the fact that the class’s efforts will be on public display on opening night instill a cohesiveness and class spirit that the faculty hasn’t seen before. William surprises everyone with his spirited portrayal of Lucifer, and on opening night, his classmates give him rave reviews: “Who knew William was so cool?” “OMG, Will wuz fabulous!” “FOFL!!!”
Middle school students often divide themselves into different social groups, with some groups having higher social status than others. Why might social groups be so important for young adolescents?
What benefits might the all-class school play have? Why does it pull the class together?
Discuss what you learned from the case study
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
