1. Obedience and punishment driven- people in this stage obey rules and laws to avoid punishment
2. Self-interest driven- people in this stage are concerned with the personal benefits they will gain from doing or not doing something
3. Conformity driven- people in this stage are concerned with societies approval of their actions
4. Authority driven- people in this stage have respect for authority and think laws should always be followed
5. Social Contract driven- people in this stage see laws as a social contract. If the majority thinks there is a law is bad, then it should be changed.
6. Universal ethical principals driven- Laws are only valid if they are fair. In this last stage, people's concepts of right are wrong are independent from law and society.
We move through these stages throughout our development, and not everyone reaches the last stage. I was going to ask you all if you thought Kohlberg was inspired by Kant, but I just read on Wikipedia that he was. Kohlberg was accused of being male-centric in his ideas about morality by Carol Gilligan. Her proposed theory of morality is based in an ethic of caring, rather than an ethic of justice. What do people think of this?
I think Kohlberg makes rather artificial distinctions in his theory of moral development that do not accurately reflect people's thoughts and behaviors. I think it is possible for a person to experience different stages in different, but simultaneously experienced, areas of his or her life. Take, for example, a student who is committed to socially progressive causes all around campus, but also obeys RPS rules and regulations. (I've just described about half the MCLA campus) Would Kohlbery say that this individual is at the sixth level, because he or she is driven by commitment to universal ethical principles? Or is the student at the first level, because he or she submits to the law of Residential Programs and Services?
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up the question of Kant's male-centrism. While I have some criticisms of care ethics (is it really possible for most/all men and women to subscribe to different sets of ethics? How can one adequately construct an argument to defend a theory that depends almost entirely on practice?), I generally find it to be a decent guide to behaving like a good person. Kant's emphasis on duty and adherence to law seems morally bankrupt to me. However, the "good will" seems to be a common thread through most ethical theories, and a true one.
To answer your first question, I would think that if a student at MCLA is committed to socially progressive causes around campus, but adheres to RPS rules out of necessity, even though he or she challenges them or fights to change them, then Kohlberg would consider this person to be in the 6th stage. The student is following the rules imposed on him or her, but the student doesn't believe that these rules are right or moral just because they are the rules. I have always understood the sixth stage to mean that you do not take the law's word for what is right and wrong. We all have to follow some laws that we don't agree with, but as long as we are not following the bad laws because we think authority ought to always be obeyed, then we can still be in the sixth stage.
ReplyDeleteBut what if these laws are not bad, but rather inconvenient for the student - such as the RPS rule against having animals in dorm areas? Obviously there are good reasons for this law to exist (for the sakes of both animals and students), but there are hypothetical exceptions. For example, if an organized and caring group of townhouse-mates found a homeless and hungry kitten. They may be capable of taking good care of the kitten, but they may be fearful of taking it to their townhouse because of the threat of RPS.
ReplyDeleteMy main point is that I think these categories are more fluid that Kohlberg seems to think, and it is possible to exist at different levels simultaneously.
Well, I think Kant at least would say that if the law is not universalizable, then you shouldn't do it. So, if the rule that you cannot have pets in the dorms is a good rule, then this exception is not universalizable. But I agree with you that the stages are very rigid and impractical.
ReplyDelete