Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Two criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Applying Kohlberg's theory of moral development
Applying Kohlberg's theory of moral development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Article Critique
The article that I have chosen to critique is written by Ian Stuart-Hamilton, and discusses how our society develops its beliefs of right and wrong. To accompany this discussion on moral development, Hamilton has chosen to relate his article to the theory of moral development that was proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg. This article was not developed by primary research, and instead draws conclusions from secondary research and the theories of well known authors to figure out how our society builds morals.
This article 's entire purpose was not to criticise Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory on moral development. Instead the overall purpose is to outline and examine how our society develops its beliefs on what is right and wrong. There
…show more content…
The author argues that Kohlberg doesn’t have the authority to decide who is moral, or to decide what the highest level of morality is. Nor does he have the power to decide what level of morality people are at. It was also argued in this article that the hierarchy of moral development that Kohlberg proposed can be considered biased, since he placed himself at the top alongside Gandhi. If Kohlberg placed himself at the top out of bias, this could potentially cast doubt on the rest of the …show more content…
I believe that our belief of what is right and wrong in our society depends on the situation and individual differences, and relating this to Kohlberg’s theory was very efficient in proving this belief to the reader.
I believe that this article is of enormous importance to this course, because it relates to our semester long discussion of how humans grow and develop. This theory outlined the importance there is on gaining the perspective of different cultures and genders, because all people develop and grow differently. In this specific case moral development is not the same for everyone. My personal response towards the article, is that I do agree with parts of Kohlberg’s theory. However, I also think it lacked some of the information needed for it to be a flawless theory, if Kohlberg had figured out a way to integrate individual differences into his theory than I would have agreed with it wholeheartedly. However, I believe that the fact that Kohlberg’s theory was lacking, placed importance on the information in which it lacked. Meaning that by not mentioning differences between cultures and genders, Kohlberg unknowingly outlined how important those differences are in figuring out how our society develops its beliefs of right and
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is three levels consisting of two stages in each. Kohlberg’s Theory explains how a human’s mind morally develops. Level one is typically common in younger children. The two stages in level one are pre-conventional stages. Stage one is obedience and punishment driven; one will judge an action by the consequences given. Stage two is out of self interest. Level two is mostly common in teenagers. The stages in this level
While maintaining a open look of this moral law, Lewis presents two objections one would present to the moral law: “The moral law is just herd instinct” and “Morality is just social convention. The moral law is not a herd instinct due to man’s choice to suppress stronger instincts in fa...
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
She has a high sense of trying to maintain order and does not believe that Heinz should not steal to drug to break the law. According to Piaget’s stages of morality she is in Heteronomous Morality. She believes that we have to obey the laws of this land since they are the absolute and that emanate from morally correct people and God himself. My Hypothesis for Kohlberg we wrong due to the fact that I believed that she only did things she thought was expected of her from her family and society as a whole which means she is in conventional not the post conventional stage.. She does not do things based on what her parents and what is expected of her because she herself believed in upholding society’s laws since she believed that they were the right thing to do. My Piaget’s Hypothesis was correct since she falls in Heteronomous morality where she seems to be heavily influenced by the authority people in her life to base her morality stance. Norma did not fall under the normal teenager stages for morality in america for both Piaget and Kohlberg. She was not in autonomous morality where she did what she herself believed was right according to Piaget and she was not in postconventional where she thought of her own standered of
Most situations regarding moral rightness, such as those for preserving life and dignity, are very human and easily agreed upon within the environment in which they are born. Greg Koukl’s idea morality and evil is disguised by the sentiment that his ideas are also humanistic and easily agreed upon, but if one were to disagree, he claims it would do nothing more than “put a rock in [the] shoe” of the one who was in disagreement. Seeming to have no idea of sociological deviance, he presents that any deviant behavior away from his personal moral code, and those like it, is “evil” and in “aversion to God”. Even Koukl’s use of usually weak circular logic arguments are weakened by the constant contradictions to his own statements.
Graham, Jesse and Johnathan Haidt. 2011. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of
Kohlberg’s theory was often criticized for being culturally biased towards individualistic cultures because the third and highest level of morality pertained most to middle-class Americans (168). Erikson’s theory of stage development revolved around accomplishing certain psychological goals to develop onto the next stage of life. Whichever goal was completed, would determine if a person could move on happily or have problems along the way (Myers 170).
The moral development of children can depend on many factors. Parenting and upbringing of the child, their environment, social environment, gender, and race are all aspects that can contribute to how a child develops their moral standards and expectations. Many psychologist have tried for several years to develop a theory to how morality is developed. One in particular is Lawrence Kohlberg (1958), his moral development theory is based on the cognitive development of children and it is thought that moral development proceeds and changes as cognitive development occurs (Arnett, 2012). Kohlberg’s moral development theory consist of 3 different levels each containing 2 stages altogether making 6 stages of moral development, as Kohlberg conducted
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
Assignment 2: The Theories of Piaget and Kohlberg. Many researchers have written about child development, but none are quite as well known as Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg. Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory and Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral development theory are essential for researchers to gain a better understanding of child development. While these theories are unique in explaining different types of child development, they have many similarities and differences as well.
Kohlberg’s theory of the stages of moral development has gained some popularity despite being controversial. The claim that the levels form a “ladder,” the bottom being the immature child with a pre-conventional level and the top being a post conventional ethical individual. The sequence is unvarying and the subject must begin at the bottom with aspirations to reach the top, possibly doing so. (7) Research confirms that individuals from different cultures actually progress according to Kohlbergs theory, at least to the conventional level. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development continue to provide a foundation for psychology studies of moral reasoning. (6)
Philosophical musings on the nature of morality are often expressed by thinkers who focus on human nature. Among the factors which determine human behaviour, a moral analysis of the concepts of right and wrong is often prominent. In investigating human behaviour through the relationship between reflection and action, this morality is often observed. Therefore, in the course currently entitled Human Sciences 101: Reflection and Action, both phiolosophy and morality are key themes. However, the calendar description for the course is as follows, “What is the relationship between thinking and action? Do they pull us in different directions? Can they be integrated? This course investigates how our own dialogue with core texts, from antiquity (e.g., Homer, Plato, Christian Scriptures) to the present (e.g., Joyce, Arendt), offers ways of understanding the dilemmas and issues raised by these texts and present in our culture” (Waterloo 2013). The description lacks a mention of the philosophical concepts of morality within the course's content. One of the core texts of the course where morality can be seen is Saint Augustine's Confessions, where Augustine explores a theological philosophy. The theme of morality is also seen in René Descartes' Discourse on Method and Related Writings, where Descartes proposes a scientific moral philosophy. Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem also explores morality through a philosophical examination of the relationship between thinking and committing evil. Therefore, the writings of Augustine, Descartes and Arendt each exhibit a philosophical perspective on morality which can be tied to the course's central theme of reflection and action. [END OF INTRODUCTION]
Determining right from wrong and dealing with problems and moral dilemmas is a part of social and emotional or “socioemotional” growth. Throughout life, our sense of ethics and morals are being developed. Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, theorized moral development in three stages: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. During childhood, moral development begins with learning right from wrong from the consequences of behavior; the stage Kohlberg labeled preconventional moral reasoning. Children learn that behavior is good or bad based on punishment.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Lewis says some folks object to the fact that there is a moral law. Some believe that this is no more than our herd instinct that has been developed. Other say what we call moral law is just a social convention, something that is put into us by education. The author points out that the way each opponent defends his side really shows that there is a right and wrong independent of what people think. Even though the idea of decent behavior makes us suspect whether there is a real natural law of behavior at all, the author concludes that the things we are bound to think about when we explain the differences, really prove just the