mteb/BrightProPsychologyRetrieval huggingface dataset:
Apparent lack of postconventional reasoning in moral exemplars  

In 1999, some of Kohlberg's measures were tested when Anne Colby and William
Damon published a study in which the development was examined in the lives of
moral exemplars that exhibited high levels of moral commitment in their
everyday behavior.  [36]  The researchers utilized the moral judgement
interview (MJI) and two standard dilemmas to compare the 23 exemplars with a
more ordinary group of people. The intention was to learn more about moral
exemplars and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Kohlberg measure.
They found that the MJI scores were not clustered at the high end of
Kohlberg's scale; they ranged from stage 3 to stage 5. Half landed at the
conventional level (stages 3, 3/4, and 4) and the other half landed at the
postconventional level (stages 4/5 and 5). Compared to the general population,
the scores of the moral exemplars may be somewhat higher than those of groups
not selected for outstanding moral behaviour. Researchers noted that the
"moral judgement scores are clearly related to subjects' educational
attainment in this study". Among the participants that had attained college
education or above, there was no difference in moral judgement scores between
genders. The study noted that although the exemplars' scores may have been
higher than those of nonexemplars, it is also clear that one is not required
to score at Kohlberg's highest stages in order to exhibit high degrees of
moral commitment and exemplary behaviour.  [37]  Apart from their scores, it
was found that the 23 participating moral exemplars described three similar
themes within all of their moral developments: certainty, positivity, and the
unity of self and moral goals. The unity between self and moral goals was
highlighted as the most important theme as it is what truly sets the exemplars
apart from the 'ordinary' people. It was discovered that the moral exemplars
see their morality as a part of their sense of identity and sense of self, not
as a conscious choice or chore. Also, the moral exemplars showed a much
broader range of moral concern than did the ordinary people and go beyond the
normal acts of daily moral engagements.

Rather than confirm the existence of a single highest stage, Larry Walker's 
cluster analysis  of a wide
variety of interview and survey variables for moral exemplars found three
types: the "caring" or "communal" cluster was strongly relational and
generative, the "deliberative" cluster had sophisticated  epistemic
 and moral reasoning, and the "brave" or
"ordinary" cluster was less distinguished by personality.  [38]
on appeal from:[2008] EWCA Crim 815
[Please contact the author with suggestions.]
Joyful Living   Sophie Cliff
 March 5, 2019   happiness
 ,  inspiration   Comment
Cart  0
[ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ](../../index.html)
*  Moral psychology 
*  1958 introductions 
*  Developmental stage theories 

Hidden categories:

*  Webarchive template wayback links 
*  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list 
*  Articles with short description 
*  Short description is different from Wikidata 
*  Good articles 
*  All articles with unsourced statements 
*  Articles with unsourced statements from June 2017 
*  Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from October 2021 

* This page was last edited on 8 May 2023, at 05:05  (UTC)  .
* Text is available under the  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0   ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the  Terms of Use  and  Privacy Policy  . Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.  , a non-profit organization.

*  Privacy policy 
*  About Wikipedia 
*  Disclaimers 
*  Contact Wikipedia 
*  Code of Conduct 
*  Developers 
* [ Statistics ](https://stats.wikimedia.org/
[2009] UKHL 20
###  1.2 Empirical Challenges to Moral Reasoning
See also  

*   Psychology portal 

*  Elliot Turiel 
*  James W. Fowler  –  Stages of faith development 
*  Jane Loevinger  –  Stages of ego development 
*  Michael Commons  –  Model of hierarchical complexity 
*  Moral hierarchy 
*  Positive disintegration 
*  Social cognitive theory of morality 
*  Universal value
Appellate Committee
Further reading  

* Crain, William C. (1985).   _Theories of Development_  (2Rev ed.). Prentice-Hall.  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-0-13-913617-7   .
* Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971).  "From 'is' to 'ought': How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development"  . In Theodore Mischel (ed.). _Cognitive development and epistemology_ . New York: Academic Press. pp.  151–284  .  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-0-12-498640-4   .
* Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973). "The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment". _Journal of Philosophy_ . **70** (18): 630–646.  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.2307/2025030  .  JSTOR  "JSTOR \(identifier\)")  2025030  .
* Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). _Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development_ . San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-0-06-064760-5   .
*  Kohlberg, Lawrence  ; Charles Levine; Alexandra Hewer (1983). _Moral stages : a current formulation and a response to critics_ . Basel, NY: Karger.  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-3-8055-3716-2   .
* [ Table of Contents ](../../contents.html)
* [ What's New ](../../new.html)
*  Random Entry 
* [ Chronological ](../../published.html)
* [ Archives ](../../archives/)
###  2.4 Moral Reasoning and Moral Psychology
Appellant’s:
Pre-conventional  

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children
and is expected to occur in animals, although adults can also exhibit this
level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by
its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and
second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an
egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted
or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong but
instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may
bring.  [9]  [10]  [11]

In **Stage one** (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the
direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is
perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time
I did that I got spanked, so I will not do it again." The worse the punishment
for the act is, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be.  [18]  This can
give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion
to their suffering. It is "egocentric", lacking recognition that others'
points of view are different from one's own.  [19]  There is "deference to
superior power or prestige".  [19]

An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a child
refusing to do something because it is wrong and that the consequences could
result in punishment. For example, a child's classmate tries to dare the child
to skip school. The child would apply obedience and punishment driven morality
by refusing to skip school because he would get punished.

**Stage two** (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me"
position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual
believes to be in their best interest, or whatever is "convenient," but
understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or
relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited
interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further
the individual's own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based
on loyalty or  intrinsic  respect, but rather a
"You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality,  [5]  which is
commonly described as  quid pro quo  , a
Latin term that means doing or giving something in order to get something in
return. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is
quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions at this
stage have the purpose of serving the individual's own needs or interests. For
the stage two theorist, the world's perspective is often seen as  morally
relative  . See also:  reciprocal
altruism  .
###  2.2 Moral Principles
Back   1:1 Coaching   Brand Partnerships   Speaking & Events
Facebook  0
  Twitter
  Pinterest  0
 0  Likes
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS
##  Related Entries
The Joyful Coach
Lord Mance
sitelinks-
wikipedia "Edit interlanguage links")

*  Article  
*  Talk  

English

*  Read  
*  Edit  
*  View history  

Tools

Tools

move to sidebar  hide

Actions

*  Read  
*  Edit  
*  View history  

General

*  What links here  
*  Related changes  
*  Upload file  
*  Special pages  
*  Permanent link  
*  Page information  
*  Cite this page  
*  Get shortened URL  
*  Download QR code  
*  Wikidata item  

Print/export

*  Download as PDF  
*  Printable version  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychological theory describing the evolution of moral reasoning

**Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development** constitute an adaptation
of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist 
Jean Piaget  .  Kohlberg
 began work on this topic as a
psychology graduate student at the  University of Chicago
 in 1958 and expanded
upon the theory throughout his life.  [1]  [2]  [3]

The theory holds that  moral reasoning  , a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for  ethical
 behavior,  [4]  has six  developmental stages
 "Constructivism \(learning
theory\)") , each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its
predecessor.  [5]  Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far
beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and
morality develop through constructive stages.  [6]  [5]  Expanding on Piaget's
work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was
principally concerned with justice and that it continued throughout the
individual's life, a notion that led to dialogue on the philosophical
Hearing date:
Volume86, Issue1
###  2.5 Modeling Conflicting Moral Considerations
External links  

 Library resources  about
**Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development**

* * *

*  Resources in your library 
*  Resources in other libraries 

*  Moral Development and Moral Education: An Overview 
*  Kohlberg's Moral Stages 
*  Do the Right Thing: Cognitive science’s search for a common morality  ( _Boston Review_ )
*  Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development  at the  Wayback Machine  (archived 2014-10-29)
*  A Summary Of Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages Of Moral Development 
*  Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development  ( _Envision your Evolution_ )

*  v  
*  t  
*  e  

 Human psychological development 

---
 Developmental psychology  |

*  Antenatal 
*  Cognitive development of infants 
*  Child development 
*  Positive youth development 
*  Young adult 
*  Adult development 
*  Positive adult development 
*  Maturity  "Maturity \(psychological\)")

Theorists and
 theories 

|

*  Freud  (1856–1939) (  Psychosexual development  )
*  Piaget  (1896–1980) (  Theory of cognitive development  )
*  Vygotsky  (1896–1934) (  Cultural-historical psychology  )
*  Erikson  (1902–1994) (  Psychosocial development  )
*  Bowlby  (1907–1990) (  Attachment theory  )
*  Bronfenbrenner  (1917–2005) (  Ecological systems theory  )
*  Kohlberg  (1927–1987) (  Stages of moral development  )
*  Commons  (b. 1939),  Fischer  (1943–2020),  Kegan  (b. 1946),  Demetriou  (b. 1950), and others (  Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development  )
*  Evolutionary developmental psychology 

Retrieved from " 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development&oldid=1153760828

"

 Categories  :

*  Developmental psychology
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
PROGRAMMES
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
####  __ Browse
Features & press
##  Other Internet Resources
Post-conventional  

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by
a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and
that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view;
individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-
conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that
typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice.
People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but
changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and
protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed
without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own
moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior,
especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-
conventional level.  [20]  [ _ citation needed
 _ ]

Kohlberg has speculated that many people may never reach this level of
abstract moral reasoning.  [9]  [10]  [11]

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 that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary
to/that meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".  [10]
This is achieved through  majority decision  and inevitable  compromise  .  Democratic government  is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In **Stage six** (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is
based on  abstract reasoning  using
universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded
in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to
disobey unjust laws.  Legal rights  are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for
 deontic  moral action. Decisions are not
reached  hypothetically  in a conditional way but rather  categorically
 in an absolute way,
as in the  philosophy of Immanuel Kant  .  [21]  This involves an individual imagining what they would do in
another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true.
[22]  The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never
a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right,
and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected,
legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six
exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently
operated at that level.  [17]  Touro College Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan
helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg's first five stages through data
analysis, but could not provide statistical evidence for the existence of
Kohlberg's sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a
concrete stage in moral development.
Peter Blair QC
* Entry Contents
* Bibliography
* Academic Tools
*  Friends PDF Preview __ 
*  Author and Citation Info __ 
* Back to Top __
(Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard)
####  __ Mirror Sites
Pages 122-143
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
The mischief
William Damon's contribution to Kohlberg's moral theory  

The American psychologist  William Damon  developed a theory that is based on Kohlberg's research. Still, it has
the merit of focusing on and analysing moral reasoning's behavioural aspects
and not just the idea of justice and rightness. Damon's methodology was
experimental, using children aged between 3 and 9 who were required to share
toys. The study applied the sharing resources technique to operationalise the
dependent variable it measured: equity or justice.  [48]

The results demonstrated an obvious stage presentation of the righteous, just
behaviour.

According to William Damon's findings, justice, transposed into action, has 6
successive levels:  [49]

Level 1 – nothing stops the egocentric tendency. The children want all the
toys without feeling the need to justify their preference. The justice
criterion is the absolute wish of the self;

Level 2 – the child wants almost all of the toys and justifies his choice in
an arbitrary or egocentric manner (e.g., "I should play with them because I
have a red dress", "They are mine because I like them!");

Level 3 – the equality criterion emerges (e.g., "We should all have the same
number of toys");

Level 4 – the merit criterion emerges (e.g., "Johnny should take more because
he was such a good boy");

Level 5 – necessity is seen as the most important selection criterion (e.g.,
"She should take the most because she was sick", "Give more to Matt because he
is poor");

Level 6 – the dilemmas begin to come up: can justice be achieved, considering
only one criterion? The consequence is the combining of criteria: equality +
merit, equality + necessity, necessity + merit, equality + necessity + merit.

The final level of Damon's mini theory is an interesting display, in the
social setting, of the logical cognitive operationalisation. This permits
decentration and the combination of many points of view, favouring 
allocentrism  .
the parcels had been stolen by a UPS employee.
(Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)
WEDNESDAY 29 APRIL 2009
####  __ Support SEP
###  2.1 Moral Uptake
####  __ About
HOUSE OF LORDS
View this site from another server:
* [ Support the SEP ](../../support/)
* [ PDFs for SEP Friends ](../../support/friends.html)
* [ Make a Donation ](../../support/donate.html)
* [ SEPIA for Libraries ](../../support/sepia.html)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is [ copyright © 2023
](../../info.html#c) by  The Metaphysics Research Lab
 , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University
implications of such research.  [7]  [8]  [2]

The six stages of moral development occur in phases of pre-conventional,
conventional and post-conventional morality. For his studies, Kohlberg relied
on stories such as the  Heinz dilemma 
and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in
similar moral dilemmas. He analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed,
rather than its conclusion and classified it into one of six stages.  [2]  [9]
[10]  [11]

There have been critiques of the theory from several perspectives. Arguments
have been made that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other moral
values, such as caring; that there is such an overlap between stages that they
should more properly be regarded as domains or that evaluations of the reasons
for moral choices are mostly _post hoc_ rationalizations (by both decision
makers and psychologists) of intuitive decisions.  [12]  [13]

A new field within psychology was created by Kohlberg's theory, and according
to Haggbloom et al.'s study of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th
century, Kohlberg was the 16th most frequently cited in introductory
psychology textbooks throughout the century, as well as the 30th most eminent.
[14]  Kohlberg's scale is about how people justify behaviors and his stages
are not a method of ranking how moral someone's behavior is; there should be a
correlation between how someone scores on the scale and how they behave. The
general hypothesis is that moral behaviour is more responsible, consistent and
predictable from people at higher levels.  [15]
OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
“(i) abolition
>  |   How to cite this entry
>  .
> ---|---
>  |   Preview the PDF version
> of this entry  at the  Friends of the SEP Society
>  .
>  |   Look up topics and thinkers
> related to this entry  at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
>  |   Enhanced bibliography for
> this entry  at  PhilPapers
>  , with links to its database.
SESSION 2008-09
* __ Browse
* [ Table of Contents ](../../contents.html)
* [ What's New ](../../new.html)
*  Random Entry 
* [ Chronological ](../../published.html)
* [ Archives ](../../archives/)
* __ About
* [ Editorial Information ](../../info.html)
* [ About the SEP ](../../about.html)
* [ Editorial Board ](../../board.html)
* [ How to Cite the SEP ](../../cite.html)
* [ Special Characters ](../../special-characters.html)
* [ Advanced Tools ](../../tools/)
* [ Contact ](../../contact.html)
* __ Support SEP
* [ Support the SEP ](../../support/)
* [ PDFs for SEP Friends ](../../support/friends.html)
* [ Make a Donation ](../../support/donate.html)
* [ SEPIA for Libraries ](../../support/sepia.html)
January 2023
####  Sharing The Productivity Tips I Swear By
###  1.3 Situating Moral Reasoning
#  Your Happiness Is Your Most Valuable Asset
*[
@
]:  at
*[
.
]:  dot
Androcentrism  

See also:  Ethics of care 

A critique of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion
of other values and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who
value other moral aspects of actions.  Carol Gilligan  , in her book _ In a Different Voice
 _ , has argued that
Kohlberg's theory is excessively  androcentric  .  [12]  Kohlberg's theory was initially based on empirical
research using only male participants; Gilligan argued that it did not
adequately describe the concerns of women.  [24]  Kohlberg stated that women
tend to get stuck at level 3, being primarily concerned with details of how to
maintain relationships and promote the welfare of family and friends. Men are
likely to move on to the abstract principles and thus have less concern with
the particulars of who is involved.  [25]  Consistent with this observation,
Gilligan's theory of moral development does not value justice above other
considerations. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based
on the  ethics of caring  .  [12]
Critics such as  Christina Hoff Sommers  of the  American Enterprise Institute
 argued
that Gilligan's research is ill-founded and that no evidence exists to support
her conclusion.  [26]  [ _ page needed   _ ]
Piaget's_four_stages "Theory of
cognitive development") , as described in his  theory of cognitive
development  , it is extremely rare to regress in stages—to lose the use of
higher stage abilities.  [16]  [17]  Stages cannot be skipped; each provides a
new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its
predecessors but integrated with them.  [16]  [17]

 Kohlberg's Model of
Moral Development

_Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)_

1\. Obedience and punishment orientation

( _How can I avoid punishment?_ )
2\. Self-interest orientation

( _What's in it for me?_ )
( _Paying for a benefit_ )

_Level 2 (Conventional)_

3\. Interpersonal accord and conformity

( _Social norms_ )
( _The good boy/girl attitude_ )
4\. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation

( _Law and order morality_ )

_Level 3 (Post-Conventional)_

5\. Social contract orientation
6\. Universal ethical principles

( _Principled conscience_ )

The understanding gained in each stage is retained in later stages, but may be
regarded by those in later stages as simplistic, lacking in sufficient
attention to detail.
About   My Book   Sprinkles of Joy  Work with me   The Choose Joy Club   TAKE THE
FREE QUIZ
VAT Registration Number: 374139095
Kerry Barker