Kohlberg

toc =Introduction= Kohlberg's theory of moral development is different from other developmental theories in that while we can grow from the early stages to the late stages, some people don't make it very far. Charlie Sheen would be a good example of this; he remains in the lowest stages of Kohlberg's moral development system despite the fact that Sheen is chronologically an adult.

Another aspect of Kohlberg's theory that takes awhile to understand is that he is studying moral reasoning, not moral actions. In other words, in any given moral dilemma, there are two options for action. He is interested in the reasons people choose the actions that they do. There can be high level moral reasoning behind doing something that seems like the wrong thing. For example, the famous dilemma Kohlberg presents is about a man whose wife is very ill and will die without treatment. They cannot afford the prescription medication that will cure her. Should this man steal the drug?

=Kohlberg's Theory=

media type="youtube" key="CYrfV-F3x_8" height="315" width="420"

[] This is a long reading but it is worthwhile because it is a very complete explanation of the theory as well as how Kohlberg developed the theory. It explains the relationship between Kohlberg and Piaget. This article was written while Kohlberg was still alive so it reflects the thinking that was going on during Kohlberg's life.

=Gilligan's Critique of Kohlberg= [] Carol Gilligan did not think Kohlberg's theory was fully applicable to women, so she created a counter theory.

=Flashcards= http://quizlet.com/_4o1ol

=Your Response= Take a dilemma from here: [] or from something you have experienced or you know about.

Create a chart like the one below and show the moral reasoning for each level, remembering that in Kohlberg's theory, WHY a person does something is more important that what he or she does.

Here is an example for the moral dilemma of should I set something on fire? Identify celebrities/famous persons, one from each major level. For example (you can use these if you like)
 * Stage || Yes || No ||
 * 1. Punishment || There's no one around so I won't get caught. || They might catch me and punish me. ||
 * 2. What's in it for me || So and so will pay me if I do this. || I will get a reward if I behave myself. ||
 * 3. Peer pressure || By setting a fire, I'll get membership in this gang. || The others at school will think I am a loser. ||
 * 4. Social order || [Probably would not do it unless the law changed to require it] || It's against the law to commit arson. ||
 * 5. Human rights || Would set something on fire if that protected someone else's rights somehow || People have a right to have their property respected. ||
 * 6. Universal ethical principles || If capital-J Justice is furthered by setting something on fire, the stage 6 person would. || Same as the "Yes" answer ||

Preconventional: Charlie Sheen Conventional: many politicians trying to win votes Postconventional: Martin Luther King, Jr.

Take the dilemma about which you made the chart and decide what each famous person might do and why.