Individual Moral Development

Jean Piaget (1932) proposed a two-stage theory of individual moral development. Children until about age 11 view rules as fixed, absolute, and imposed, and expect punishment based solely on the amount of damage done.

Lawrence Kohlberg (1984) proposed three levels of moral development, each divided into two stages. Children at the pre-conventional level think only of themselves and respond only to rules enforced by physical reward or punishment. During the first stage, children know that they must obey rules imposed by adults. During the second stage, they learn that there are different rules in different situations, from which they develop a sense of fairness. Punishment for breaking rules is a risk one tries to avoid.

At the second, conventional level, usually entered as teens, individuals define issues in terms of character traits such as honesty or concern for others that Kohlberg labels “conventional morality.” During the first stage, individuals focus on interpersonal relations. Group opinion, identification, and loyalty matter. During the second stage, the broader society and its ethical values determine moral judgments. Reasoning works best with family or close friends where it still is possible to get to know the needs and feelings of others, but individuals begin to realize that society without law would be something like Hobbes’s state of nature.

Kohlberg proposed a third level characterized by theoretical ideas that few reach and that may not actually exist. The first stage is culturally bound, is associated with protection of basic rights, and makes provision for democratic change. During the final stage, people recognize that democracy does not always result in justice, equality, and protection of human rights. Willingness to commit and suffer the consequences of civil disobedience distinguishes this stage in Kohlberg’s taxonomy, but merely suffering punishment does not prove that one’s transgressions are noble

As continued research revealed anomalies in the model, Kohlberg suggested modifications. Eventually, they led Elliot Turiel to suggest that morality is a distinct “domain” that develops in parallel with others such as understanding of social convention rather than as a single system. Gilligan pointed out that Kohlberg's theories were based entirely on male subjects—an astounding oversight. She claimed that it reflected a morality of justice and rights based on equality and fairness that was a male phenomenon, whereas females had their own morality based on nonviolence and caring for anyone in need. Further research has established that moral reasoning does not follow such distinct gender lines but that both males and females reason based on caring, justice, and responsibility.