Running head: FRINDLES WEEK 4

Frindles Week 4
University at Buffalo
Nolan Theodore

Frindles Week 4

FRIDNLES WEEK 4

Chapter 6: Moral Development Theory (Evans et al., 2010)

Main Points:

Kohlbergs theory of moral development theory (1981, as cited in Evans et al., 2010)
attempts to explain the process by which an individual makes a moral decision, yet pays
no mind to the content of said decision.
o Judgments have 3 qualities: value over fact, effect on individual, and mandates
action be taken. (Colby, Kohlberg, & Kauffman, 1987, as cited in Evans et al.,
2010)
Kohlbergs is comprised of hierarchal stages and contain three criterion: structure,
sequence, and hierarchy.
Kohlberg states that perspective taking (put yourself in their shoes) is required before
proper moral development can occur
Conditions that facilitate moral development are exposure to higher-stage thinking (plusone reasoning) and disequilibrium (internal dissonance in reasoning structure)
Kohlbergs theory explains moral reasoning in three levels
o Level 1: Individual is not socialized has no concept of societal expectations or
norms
o Level 2: Individual is assimilated into society and abides by societal rules, norms,
etc.
o Level 3: Individual liberates self from societal norms and organizes their life and
decisions based on their own wants, desires, and self-constructed morality
Kohlbergs theory is grouped into six stages
o Stage 1. Heteronomous morality: individual obeys rules, avoids conflict, bends to
authority, is individually-focused
o Stage 2. Individualistic morality: individual follows rules if it is in their best
interest to do so (Evans et al., 2010, p. 103), realize that others have own needs
and desires
o Stage 3. Interpersonally normative morality: Righteousness is assimilating into
societys designated roles, rules, etc. and revolves around being a good member of
society
o Stage 4. Social system morality: individual understands societal rules and
expectations to apply to all persons equally and carrying out laws and
expectations justly.
o Stage 5. Human rights and social welfare morality: Social norms and laws are no
longer accepted at first glance and are now assessed on how they positively or
negatively impact members of society. Individuals understand society to be a
community constructed to protect the welfare of all.
o Stage 6. Morality of universalizablegeneral ethics: True morality requires
taking into consideration everyones point-of-view and is exercised by applying
universal principles that are transferable to any moral dilemma. Kohlberg could
not prove the existence of this stage.

FRIDNLES WEEK 4

Rest et al. (2000) suggested moral development occurs based on three schemas in
opposition to Kohlbergs stages: personal interest, maintaining norms, and
postconventional
Values and principles on which individuals base moral judgments are found to vary in
different cultures and contexts (Evans et al., 2010, p. 107)
Tenets of some religious culture may facilitate conventional reasoning more so than
postconventional
Gilligans theory of moral development (1977, as cited in Evans et al., 2010) contains
three levels with defined transitional periods for women
o Level 1: Individual is focused on survival, growth occurs if a dilemma leads the
individual to seek another option
Transition: Individual begins shift from selfishness to connection to others
o Level 2: Survival comes to be understood as being assimilated into society
appropriately (assuming feminine values). Dissonance occurs when individual
comes to the dilemma of hurting others, a moral opposite of her predisposed
gender role
Transition: Individual questions self-sacrifice for others, reflects upon her
own self to evaluate if own needs can be joined with responsibilities. In
this transition, needs are for first time viewed as a truth and not egotistical.
o Level 3: Nonviolence becomes the main tenet of morality. With a renewed sense
and love of self, the individual keeps her own needs in mind when placed in a
moral dilemma.

Key Terms:
1. Structure criterion Individuals tend to reason similarly despite situation or content
2. Sequence criterion Stages are framed in a specific order despite setting or experience
3. Hierarchy criterion Each stage builds upon past stages and encapsulates all
development from prior stages
4. Personal Interest Schema What is morally right in this schema is that which appeals to
the investment an individual holds in consequences of the action (Evans et al., 2010, p.
106)
5. Maintaining Norms Schema This schema revolves around respect for the society. This
includes individuals wishing to be accepted by society, abiding by its laws and norms,
understanding that said laws apply to all equally, and that hierarchy is key.
6. Postconventional Schema Moral obligations do not revolve around keeping a status quo
or self-interest, but rather on communal values, such as shared ideals, reciprocity, and
critical inspection in the form of logical consistency and debate (Evans et al., 2010, p.
106)

FRIDNLES WEEK 4

Critiques/Comments:

I believe that Kohlbergs theory would be much more interesting and complete if it were
to include the content of moral decisions. I would like to know more about why it was not
included. Like Rest, I cannot seem to understand how Kohlberg could separate how an
individual arrives at a certain dilemma from the content surrounding the decision.
Kohlbergs theory really resonates with me simply because it recognizes that moral
judgment does not end with simply abiding by the rules of a society and assuming that all
laws affect everyone equally. It would seem to be pretty monumental for those interested
in social justice. This theory has much more to provide to the world beyond student
affairs professionals by helping to illustrate how certain individuals (politicians, those
belonging to religions) come to moral decisions.
Rests schemas are most likely more accurate, as when the context of a decision changes,
an individual could potentially make a decision situated in one schema. I dont believe
people uniformly ascend stages of moral development but will instead base a decision on
both content and beliefs.
Gilligans theory was confusing, suspect and requires revisiting at some point in time.
The care versus justice approach seemed altogether overly generalized, so much so that I
could not decipher how Gilligan arrived at/structured the care versus justice moral
development. Furthermore, Gilligans theory past Level 2 didnt click for me,
specifically the moral of nonviolence overriding the moral nature of decisions.
I tend to think that gender continues to cross-contaminate, to the point that feminine
traits seep into masculine traits and vice-versa. As a result, perhaps Gilligans theory
would not be of much use in 2015 as opposed to 1977. Additional research would be
beneficial.
o I have to question if my own male identity affects how readily I accept Kohlbergs
theory yet so readily reject Gilligans. Is this because Kohlbergs and Rests
theories rings so true for me and Gilligans does not? Kohlbergs and Rests
seemed so universal, yet this is what tends to be the inherent nature of work with
male narratives. All in all, Ill be interested to see how the women in my class
understood Gilligans work and if they believe it is still applicable in todays
society. Additionally, research transgender students as they relate to these theories
would be very interesting, as they tend to be very binary gender-wise.

FRIDNLES WEEK 4

5
References

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., & Kauffman, K. (1987). Theoretical introduction to the instrument of
moral judgment. In A. Colby & L. Kohlberg (Eds.), The measurement of moral judgment:
Vol. 1. Theoretical foundations and research validation (pp. 1 67). New York:
Cambridge University Press
Evans, N., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Moral development
theory. In Evans, N. et al. Student development theory: Theory, research, and practice,
2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Womens conception of self and morality. Harvard
Educational Review, 47, 481-517.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol I. The philosophy of moral development.
San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thomas, S.J., & Bebeau, M.J. (2000). A Neo-Kohlbergian approach to
morality research, Journal of Moral Education, 29, 381-395.