Week 3
Moral Reasoning
Topic X
___________________________________________ Ethics and Moral Reasoning
ASSIGNMENT OBJECTIVE: Relate Moral Reasoning to Ethical Reasoning
TOPIC: Moral Reasoning According to Lawrence Kohlberg
CONTENTS
1. Overview
2. Explore
3. Recap
3. Discussion
__________________________________________________________________________________
1. Overview
How do you handle a moral dilemma? Is this different from an ethical dilemma? Think about a
situation in your past when there was some decision that had to be made that included significant
risk or compromise. Perhaps integrity is at stake or lives are threatened. How do you decide
what to do so that the outcome was morally and/or ethically sound? What does that mean?
Lawrence Kohlberg spent his life studying how people make moral judgements by having them
face sample moral dilemmas. From Kohlberg’s work a theory emerged for moral reasoning
levels of development that we will consider and perhaps use as a decision-making tool. Would
we make better decisions if we consider his findings before making a decision that involves
moral judgement?
Stages of Moral Reasoning
Kohlberg (1969, 1976, 1981) posited that morality was developmental and that stages could not
be skipped. His proposed stages are as follows:
Stage 1 morality is based on punishment.
Stage 2 is centered on what gets a reward.
Stage 3 is all about looking good and conforming to good behavior.
Stage 4 is focused on obedience. This is the stage that is law-based.
Stage 5 recognizes that the law needs to be questioned.
Stage 6 takes into account society and universal principles (Kohlberg, Levine, and
Hewer, 1983).
Week 3
Moral Reasoning
Topic X
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning
http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/theory/vmemes/3-stage-theories-of-development/
So…Where are you on this scale from 1-6? Let’s find out. Kohlberg (1981) used moral
dilemmas (below) to figure this out in his research. As you are reading example, consider that
you could be either one of the two people involved. You don’t know which:
The Frozen Lake Dilemma
There is a frozen lake. On the shore is a sign that reads
No
Swimming
(per city ordinance
123 of XYZ)
Two people are on the scene. One is on the shore; the other has fallen into the lake and is
struggling to stay alive. Should the person on the shore save the person in the lake?
Week 3
Moral Reasoning
Topic X
How do you solve this problem? What is your thought process? According to Kholberg’s theory of
moral reasoning, it is not your answer that matters; it is the reasoning you use that brings you that answer
that determines your moral reasoning level (Kurtines, Gewirtz, and Lamb, 2014). Remember: For this to
work, must consider that you could come into this situation as either of the two people involved. For
Kohlberg, the most adequate result of the dilemma considerations was reversibility. In other
words: a moral act within a particular situation is satisfactory even if particular persons were to
switch, a phenomenon known as “moral musical chairs” (Boyes & Walker, 1988, p. 46).
2. Explore
Let’s take a look at some possible sample options according to Kohlberg:
If you are operating at Stage 1 you are considering whether or not you will be punished
for your actions. If you are the person on the shore, perhaps you are concerned that you
will be punished if you don’t attempt to save the person who is drowning. If you are the
person in the lake, perhaps you want the person on the shore to save you so that you
won’t face the more severe punishment of having them call the fire department.
At Stage 2, perhaps if you are on the shore, you are thinking about what you will get out
of this situation from the person you save. Perhaps there will be money, indebtedness,
respect. If you are in the lake, you might be concerned about what the cost might be for
being saved.
Stage 3 might be about how your friends will see you if you do or don’t save this person
in the lake. Will you make the news? Television interviews perhaps? The person in the
lake is concerned about how they will be perceived if they are saved.
At Stage 4, perhaps nothing is expected by either party because of the “No Swimming”
sign. If the way says that they cannot swim, end of story.
Stage 5 participants know the law and see the sign but decide that there are more
important things to be considered. Perhaps the consequences of saving a life are greater
than the consequences of breaking the law.
Stage 6 participants are perhaps looking beyond their own wants, needs, and rules and
looking at what is best for society. What are the consequences to the world of being
saved or drowning?
This is not meant to be easy! Kohlberg created many such dilemmas to measure levels of
morality that were meant to be thought provoking.
Week 3
Moral Reasoning
Topic X
Now take some time to figure this out for yourself. Become aware of your thought process and
your own process for moral reasoning. Where do you stand and why? Try this out on a friend or
a group of people. Watch how they think and move through some of the stages.
Background
According to Kohlberg, knowledge and learning contribute to moral development which
becomes more complex and mature with each advancing stage – see graphic above. The view of
people can be pictured as a spectrum with Stage 1 having no view of other people at all and
Stage 6 being entirely focused on society. It is important to note that Kohlberg couldn’t find
a statistically-significant sample of Stage 6 (Krebs, Vermeulen, Carpendale, & Denton, 2014).
History
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development were adapted from the psychological model
originally conceived of by Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1932). Kohlberg expanded and
developed Piaget’s concepts as his life’s work. His theory of moral reasoning, the basis for
ethical behavior, describes 6 developmental stages, each more sophisticated and developed than
its predecessor. Kohlberg (1963) determined that the lifelong process of moral development
was directly correlated with justice.
Kohlberg’s methodology first developed for his 1958 dissertation with 72 boys aged between 10
and 16. He considered 9 universal values or moral dilemmas to determine which stage of moral
reasoning a person uses:

property

liberty

law

distributive justice

roles and concerns of affection

truth

roles and concerns of authority

sex

life
The dilemmas that participants faced were situations in which a person has to make a moral
decision, choosing between 2 (or more) moral principles. The participant is asked a series of
open-ended questions about what they think the right course of action is, as well as justifications
Week 3
Moral Reasoning
Topic X
as to why certain actions are right or wrong. The form and structure of these replies are scored,
not the content. In other words, it wasn’t the answer that mattered but the level of moral
reasoning behind the answer.
3. Recap
Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg described moral reasoning as belonging to one of 6 distinct stages. Kohlberg posited
that stages had to be sequential; each providing a new and necessary perspective, more
comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them (Kurtines,
Gewirtz, & Lamb, 2014). Moral maturity according to this theory was achieved through
development of awareness of weaknesses in current thinking and gains in perspective by taking
the viewpoints of others. The Frozen Lake Dilemma is one of many moral dilemmas that
Kohlberg used. Try this one out for yourself. Try this out on a group of your friends. Observe
the thinking involved and then participate in this week’s discussion.
4. Discussion
Link to Discussions
1. What is the difference between moral reasoning and ethical reasoning? Can they work
together?
2. After studying Kohlberg’s theory, what is your view of decisions based on the law?
3. Discuss the Frozen Lake dilemma. How did you decide the outcome? What level of moral
reasoning did you use? Has this exercise changed your thinking?
Note that you will not be able to view the responses of others until you have posted a response to the starter thread.
Who: Required of all participants
When: By Saturday, midnight EST
Where: Reply to my starter thread in the Week 3 Discussions forum
What: Online Content - Starter Thread
References
Boyes, M. C., & Walker, L. J. (1988). Implications of cultural diversity for the universality
claims of Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning. Human development, 31(1), 44-59.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. publisher not identified.
Week 3
Moral Reasoning
Topic X
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental
approach. Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues, 31-53.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development moral stages and the idea of justice.
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a
response to critics.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, and Richard H. Hersh. "Moral development: A review of the
theory." Theory into practice 16, no. 2 (1977): 53-59.
Krebs, D. L., Vermeulen, S. C., Carpendale, J. I., & Denton, K. (2014). Structural and situational
influences on moral judgment: The interaction between stage and dilemma. en: WM Kurtines et
JL Gewirtz (eds.): Handbook of moral behavior and development, 1, 139-169.
Kurtines, W. M., Gewirtz, J., & Lamb, J. L. (2014). Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development:
Volume 1: Theory. Psychology Press.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral development of the child. Kegan Paul, London.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of children. London: Routledge& Kegan-Paul.