Which Is The Last Of Kohlberg’S Stages Of Cognitive Moral Development?

At the third and final stage of moral growth, known as postconventional morality, individuals develop an awareness of the abstract moral concepts that underlie morality. The following are the two stages that make up this level: The concepts of a social contract and individual rights allow individuals to begin to account for the varying values, attitudes, and beliefs of other people when they progress to the following stage, which is known as Stage 5.

Stage 5 is also known as the “Social Contract and Individual Rights” stage. The members of a society need to come to an agreement on the rules and laws that will be followed in order to keep the society functioning properly. The last stage of moral reasoning that Kohlberg proposes is known as Stage 6 (Universal Principles), and it is grounded in universal ethical principles as well as abstract thinking.

People have reached a point where they adhere to these internalized ideas of justice, even if doing so goes against the laws and norms in place. Kohlberg claimed that only a tiny fraction of people (somewhere between 10 and 15 percent) ever reach the post-conventional phases of development in their lives.

What are Kohlberg’s stages of cognitive development?

A number of questions, such as the following ones, were posed by Kohlberg: 1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug? 2. If Heinz did not love his wife, how would it affect their relationship? 3. What if the person who was passing away was a complete stranger? Would that change anything? 4.

  1. If the woman were to pass away, should the police investigate the pharmacist for possible murder? Kohlberg sought to get insight into the development of moral reasoning in persons at different ages by analyzing the responses to these questions provided by children of varying ages.
  2. The sample consisted of 72 males from Chicago who were between the ages of 10 and 16 years old; of them, 58 were tracked at three-yearly intervals over a period of 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

A two-hour interview centered on the 10 predicaments was conducted with each of the boys. Kohlberg’s primary focus was not on whether the boys thought the conduct was appropriate or inappropriate; rather, he was interested in the reasons that they gave for their conclusion.

He discovered that the children’s responses to these questions tended to shift as they grew older. Kohlberg distinguished between three separate stages of moral thinking, which he referred to as preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level is divided into two separate stages. Only in the sequence in which they are stated may anyone advance through these levels.

Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development

With each succeeding stage, the reasoning that was typical of the stage before it is replaced by new reasoning. Not everyone makes it through all of the levels. The following are the three degrees of moral reasoning:

See also:  What Does Stephen Covey Say About Personal Development Plan?

How many stages are in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development?

Levels – Pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional were the three categories that were used to organize Kohlberg’s six stages of development. It is quite unusual for a child to go backward in stages, according to Piaget’s constructivist prerequisites for a stage model (for further information, see the theorist’s theory of cognitive development).

  1. Even yet, nobody ever operates at their peak performance during their whole life.
  2. It is also not feasible to “jump” phases; each level presents a new yet required perspective, and is more extensive, differentiated, and integrated than its predecessors were.
  3. Jumping stages is not possible.
  4. Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) 1.

An emphasis on obedience and retribution orientation 2. A focus on one’s own self-interest (asking, “What’s in it for me?”) Level 2 (Conventional) 3. agreement and compliance in interpersonal relationships (the attitude of being a nice lad or girl).4. An attitude that upholds authority and the established social order ( Law and order morality ) Level 3 (Post-Conventional) 5.

What is the lowest level of Kohlberg’s moral stages?

The most immature stage according to Kohlberg’s theory of the progression of moral growth. At this level, morality is frequently centered on the concept of rewards and sanctions. Punishment and obedience are the two steps that make up the preconventional thinking process. orientation and individuality, instrumental purpose, and exchange are all topics that will be discussed.

Why do you think that the last level of Kohlberg’s Six stage of moral development is not reached by all and is even rarely seen in adults?

And I believe that the reason that the final level of Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development is not reached by all people and is even rarely seen in adults is because this level is characterized by a growing realization that individuals may disobey rules that are inconsistent with their own principles.

See also:  How To Write A Personal Development Paper?

Which of the following is not a stage in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development?

Option 1: The social compact and social rights is the answer (the detailed solution is below). The Moral Development as Explained by Kohlberg’s Theory:

  • In his research on the formation of morality, Lawrence Kohlberg posed difficult moral questions to several age groups, including children, adolescents, and adults. These conundrums are presented in the form of stories
  • one of Kohlberg’s most famous dilemmas is a guy named Heinz who is faced with the decision of whether or not to steal medicine or to watch his wife pass away.
  • Kohlberg was interested not in the response itself but rather in the reasoning children offered for their replies. He outlined two phases of moral reasoning at each of the three main levels of moral reasoning that he distinguished, which were pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.

The six phases of moral growth identified by Kohlberg are:

Pre-conventional Obedience and punishment Based on avoiding punishment, a focus on the consequences of actions, rather than intentions; intrinsic deference to authority
Individualism and exchange The “right” behaviors are those that are in the best interest of oneself, tit for tat mentality
Conventional Interpersonal relationships Good boy/ Good girl attitude sees individuals as filling social roles
Authority and social order Law and order as highest ideals,
Post-conventional Social contract Begin to learn other’s have different values; the realization that law is contingent on culture
Universal principle Develop internal moral principle

Important Points The development of moral psychology was significantly aided by Kohlberg’s theory, which was a significant contributor. Despite the fact that the theory has had a significant amount of impact, certain components of the theory have been criticized for the following reasons:

  • Moral reasoning does not equal moral activity: Kohlberg’s theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a significant gap between understanding what we ought to do and our actual acts. Moral reasoning and moral behavior are not the same thing. Therefore, moral thought might not necessarily result in moral conduct.
  • Overemphasizes justice: Detractors of Kohlberg’s theory of moral growth have remarked that it places an excessive amount of emphasis on the idea of fairness when it comes to making moral decisions. It’s possible that factors like compassion, care, and other interpersonal sentiments have a significant role in moral reasoning. [Citation needed] 9
  • Bias based on culture: Individualist cultures place a greater emphasis on personal rights, whereas collectivist cultures place a greater emphasis on the significance of society and community. Kohlberg’s thesis does not take into consideration the possibility that eastern civilizations with a collectivist orientation may have distinct moral outlooks. The cultural distinctions in moral thinking were not taken into consideration by Kohlberg.
  • Discrimination based on age: the majority of his subjects were youngsters under the age of 16, and it was clear that they had no prior experience with marriage. These youngsters may not have been able to grasp the Heinz problem because it was too abstract for them, and the outcomes may have been different if they had been presented with a situation that was more relevant to their day-to-day issues.
  • A theory was suggested by Kohlberg without taking into account the fact that men and women are different. Because all of the people who participated in Kohlberg’s study were men, his detractors, notably Carol Gilligan, have asserted that his theory is skewed toward men and is thus prejudiced in that direction. Kohlberg argued that women tended to remain at the third level of moral growth because they place a greater focus on things such as social ties and the welfare of others. Men, on the other hand, tended to advance to higher levels of moral development.
  • Kohlberg asserted that moral thinking is developmental, but it is not. Kolberg made the proposal that moral reasoning is developed through time
  • however, this is not the case. According to Kohlberg’s theory, it is not the anticipated behavior for a grown adult to conduct according to fear of punishment from his parents. However, this type of behavior is possible.
See also:  Needs Which Represent The Desire For Personal Development And Information Are Called?

Because social rights is not a component of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, we are able to draw the conclusion that social rights is not acknowledged in Kohlberg’s theory of moral growth.

Why do you think that the last level of Kohlberg’s Six stage of moral development is not reached by all and is even rarely seen in adults?

And I believe that the reason that the final level of Kohlberg’s Six Stages of Moral Development is not reached by all people and is even rarely seen in adults is because this level is characterized by a growing realization that individuals may disobey rules that are inconsistent with their own principles.