What is the difference between the social contract orientation stage and the universal ethical principle orientation stage?

Stages of Moral Development parallel to stages of intellectual development

Índice Show

Dig deeper!
Classroom exercise

1. Stages must be passed through in order.

2. Not everyone reaches the highest levels.

3. Stages "originate inside ourselves as we process our social experience." (293) Children develop their own values and these are based on universals such as empathy. (294)

4. Differences in values can be explained as due to differences in stages of individuals’ moral development.

5. Difference between saying people do have moral values and that people ought to have different moral values. (292) - (Naturalistic Fallacy)

6. Cross-cultural based on scoring responses to dilemmas such as the Heinz dilemma. Original longitudinal study 75 middle class US boys. Later middle class urban boys in Taiwan and Mexico, village boys in Malaysia, Yucatan, and Turkey. According to K. middle class more advanced in moral judgement at same ages.

7. People understand all stages below their stage and one stage above. They prefer the stage above.

8. People can move ahead to next stage when confronted by views of someone one stage ahead.

9. Highest best principle/virtue is justice - impartiality, universality, choosing what we want all people to adopt.

10. Best way to teach is Socratic - Myth of the Cave (308)

II. KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Mechanisms of Social Control - 8

Kohlberg and his followers presented a number of studies, including cross-cultural comparisons with a number of nations, to support this model (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983; Miller, Bersoff, & Harwood, 1990; Miller & Bersoff, 1992). I think it would be worthwhile to examine these stages and levels not only in terms of developmental psychology, but in exploring various peoples and cultures and how they respond to mechanisms of social control. In Table 4, I have tried to draw a parallel between Kohlberg's stages and the bases of power that might operate most effectively at each level. Some of the parallels are quite clear: Those with a "Punishment and Obedience Orientation" would be more likely to response to impersonal coercive power and reward power. Those with an "Interpersonal Concordance Orientation" would be more likely to respond to personal coercion and personal reward, plus, perhaps, referent power. "Social System Maintenance" seems to suggest particularly legitimate position power and legitimate power of equity. "Social Contract Orientation" parallels the legitimate power of reciprocity. And "Universal Ethical Principles Orientation" implies an amenity toward informational power, particularly information that shows a relationship between the desirable behavior and the target's basic moral values. Kohlberg's model of moral stages has certainly had great impact in psychology, education, and religion. It does not quite seem so well universally accepted today, though it still has its devotees, as in a recent work by Reed (1997). Gilligan (1982) specifically felt that Kohlberg's system had a built-in gender bias, and really represented a masculine, rather than a feminine orientation. Paloutzian (1996, p. 94) suggests that the system has a political bias in favor of Western democratic liberalism. There are also questions about the universality of the stages that he proposed. Unfortunately, the research depends too much on the Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire, in which the items themselves might have a cultural bias. It would be nice to see research on moral choices that focused more on how power and influence strategies determined appropriate behavior. I, personally, have some intuitive questions about whether the stages are ordered as Kohlberg presents them, particularly if we look at adults in different societies and cultures, rather than children of different ages. But it still makes sense that there are differences among people and peoples in terms of moral reasoning, and in terms of what forms of influence, which bases of power, are most effective. And we can take that position without saying anything about the intrinsic superiority of one stage over another. One can well imagine that a social influence process that is meant to work with people who operate with Kohlberg calls a Universal Ethical Principles Orientation will not work for those who think in terms of Punishment and Obedience. And, by the same token, we can all probably think of examples in which people who would listen to an argument for doing something because it is right and proper would rebel against an order to do the same thing that threatens punishment. And what happens, then, when religious works, which were prepared for a people who were presumed to respond only to promises of reward or threats of punishment, are retained without modification at a later time, when people are more attuned to appeals of legitimacy of equity, or to value-related information orientation?

Modern-Day Difficulties in Accepting Supreme Coercive and Legitimate Power

It is understandable that in a modern age, some might be inclined to reject entirely the orthodox notions of religion, with an all-powerful and sometimes vengeful Deity, a form of religion developed in a preliterate, much less sophisticated age, but which is then frozen and impermeable to changes resulting from knowledge acquired in later years. As in social influence processes in general, it is painful and restricting of one's sense of independence and individualism to have to succumb to extreme coercive power, or to become dependent on reward power, or to be subjected continuously to the guilt of stronger forms of legitimate equity, legitimate position, or legitimate reciprocity power. Karen Armstrong, who had spent seven years as a Roman Catholic nun in a traditional order, describes such feelings very vividly: Those of us who have had a difficult time with religion in the past find it liberating to be rid of the God who terrorized our childhood. It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules. We have a new intellectual freedom and can boldly follow up our own ideas without pussyfooting around difficult articles of faith, feeling all the while a sinking loss of integrity. (Armstrong, 1993, p. 378) But she goes on to say that the hideous deity that describes is not necessarily the only way one can practice and understand one's religion. She does accept the possibility that for some people such a religious outlook might be more effective, not only as a means of social control, but in giving the adherent a sense of security, a structured life, and the support of a number of other adherents who feel similarly. For those of us who have a need for a logical, informational power system for determining our behavior or sense of morality, within or without religion, it is important for us to understand that it is entirely appropriate that others structure their lives and their religion in more traditional ways - so long as in doing so they do not restrict the rights of others.

There have been many times in history when there have been movements away from a religion with a literal punishment/obedience orientation to religions with an approach that emphasizes ethical principles with an informational orientation. In Islam there were such teachers as Mulla Sadra in Iran (1571-1640), who placed greater emphasis on informational power. Knowledge, he said, was not simply a matter of acquiring information but a process of transformation. He saw heaven and the divine to be discovered within oneself. In the eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1896) "dismissed many of the trappings of religion, such as the dogmatic authority of the churches, prayer and ritual, which prevented human beings from relying upon their own prayers and encouraged them to depend upon Another." However, he still viewed God as a strategy that enables us to function more efficiently and with greater morality, but people still needed a governor who would reward virtue with happiness (Armstrong, 1993, pp. 314-315). In Europe, some Jewish scholars were influenced by Kant's thinking, who then tended to emphasize basic moral responsibility, which could be discussed and argued. These included the German philosopher, Moses Mendelssohn, the grandfather of musician Felix Mendelssohn, and Baruch Spinoza, in Holland, whom we discussed above. In many cases, such people were condemned as "freethinkers," or worse, by traditional religious authorities, ostracized and punished, sometimes very severely. We discussed earlier similar treatment of Maimonides in the twelfth century (see note 8, p. 178).

Go to Part 9

Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, was among the pioneers of moral development research. Building on from the original propositions of Jean Piaget, Kohlberg theorised that humans develop their moral judgements in 6 stages. To confirm his theory, Kohlberg interviewed boys between the ages of 10 and 16. He then analyzed how they would justify their decision when confronted with different hypothetical moral dilemmas. Superimposing the participants’ argumentation onto their cognitive development, Kohlberg postulated, that humans progress through the stages in a hierarchical order, as their cognitive abilities develop. To see how it works and try it yourself, read on!

The full story

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory claims that our development of moral reasoning happens in six stages. The stages themselves are structured in three levels: Pre-Conventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional. To understand this better, imagine a conflict at school.

There is a fight in the schoolyard. Two ninth-graders are beating up Tom. Those who watch the fight are at different stages of moral development. Let’s see what they do and how they justify their behavior.

Stage 1: Obedience and punishment

At stage one, we make moral judgments based on obedience and punishment. Finn’s sense of good and bad is directly linked to whether he gets punished or not. Finn sees what is happening to his friend and wants to help. He doesn’t, however, because he is afraid the teacher may punish him if he gets caught fighting. He asks himself, how can I avoid punishment?

Stage 2: Self-interest

At stage two, we are motivated by self-interest. Mary decides to intervene and help Tom. She knows that she might get punished, but she also knows that she could become a victim herself, someday. If she helps Tom now, he might help her in the future. She is asking herself: What’s in it for me?

Stage 3: Interpersonal accord and conformity

At stage three, interpersonal accord and conformity guide our moral judgments. Betty sees the fight and wants to intervene, but when she realizes that all the others are just watching, she decides not to get involved. She wants others to see that she is a good girl, who is conforming with the ethics of the community. She asks herself: What do others think of me?

Stage 4: Authority and maintaining social order

At stage four, we value authority and want to maintain social-order. When the teacher sees the group fighting, he immediately steps in and shouts: “Stop, fighting at school is forbidden!”. He feels that, above all, it is important to follow the rules, otherwise chaos breaks out and that it is his duty to uphold the rules that sustain a functioning society. The teacher at that moment asks himself: How can I maintain law and order?

Stage 5: Social contract

At stage five, we understand rules as a social contract as opposed to a strict order. Jessy, who watches from afar, is not sure how she feels about this. To her, rules make sense only if they serve the right purpose. Obviously, the school rules prohibit fighting, but maybe Tom deserves to finally learn his lesson. Just yesterday he punched a young girl from grade one. She asks herself: Does a rule truly serve all members of the community?

Stage 6: Universal ethical principles

At stage six, we are guided by universal ethical principles. All those involved now have to face the headmaster. He first explains the school rules, and why they exist. He then clarifies that rules are valid only if they are grounded in justice. The commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust rules. The headmaster’s highest moral principle is compassion. He believes that all people should learn to understand each other’s viewpoints and that they don’t feel alone with their feelings. He asks: What are the abstract ethical principles that serve my understandings of justice?

Pre-conventional level

At the pre-conventional level, Finn is driven by fear and Mary by self-interest. Both judge what is right or wrong by the direct consequences they expect for themselves, and not by social norms. This form of reasoning is common among children.

Conventional level

At the conventional level, Betty responds to peer pressure, and the teacher follows the rules. Their morality is centered around what society regards as right. At this level, the fairness of rules is seldom questioned. It is common to think like this during adolescence and adulthood.

Post-conventional level

At the post-conventional level, Jessy knows that things are complicated because individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own morality. The headmaster follows a universal ethical idea, at complete disconnect with what society thinks or the rules say. To him everything is solved through compassion. The right behavior in his opinion, is therefore never a means to an end, but always an end in itself. Not every person reaches this level.

“I love content like this where we are presented with different social theories or experiments. Love Sprouts for doing this. I am thankful to you that I am finally discovering content that I love.”
– Krithik Vakil

Sources

Dig deeper!

Classroom exercise

We will now present to you the most famous moral dilemma Kohlberg presented to his students. Let’s see what you would do:

The Heinz dilemma

A woman was on her deathbed. There was only one drug that the doctors thought might save her. The druggist that made that particular medicine sold it for ten times the price of the production costs. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, was poor and could not afford to buy the drug, not even with the financial help of his friends. Heinz then asked the pharmacist to sell it to him for half the price, but he refused.

To save the life of his wife, Heinz broke into the man’s laboratory and stole the medicine.

Now, tell us:

Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
Would it change anything if Heinz didn’t love his wife?
What if the person dying was not his wife, but a stranger?
Should the police arrest the druggist for murder if the wife had died?

Please write your answers and their justifications in the comments below! To see how the answers relate to each of Kohlberg’s stages, read more about the Heinz Dilemma on Wikipedia.