Three Levels of Morality

Level 1: Pre-conventional Morality

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Kohlberg's stage 1 is alike to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child supposes that mighty administration hand down a repaired set of directions which he or she should unquestioningly obey. To the Daniel dilemma, the child normally states that Daniel was incorrect to rob the pharmaceutical because "It's contrary to the law," or "It's awful to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When inquired to complicated, the child generally answers in periods of the penalties engaged, interpreting that robbing is awful "because you'll get punished"(Kohlberg 16).

Although the huge most of children at stage 1 resist Daniel's theft, it is still likely for a child to support the activity and still provide work stage 1. For demonstration, a child might state, "Daniel can rob it because he inquired first and it's not like he robbed certain thing big; he won't get punished"(Kohlberg 35). Even though the child acquiesces with Daniel's activity, the reasoning is still stage 1; the anxiety is with what administration allows and punish.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 considering "pre-conventional" because children manage not yet talk as constituents of society. Instead, they glimpse morality as certain thing external to themselves, as that which the large-scale persons state they should do (Kohlberg 76).

 

Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange

At this stage children identify that there is not just one right outlook that is presented down by the authorities. Different persons have distinct viewpoints. "Daniel," they might issue out, "might believe its right to take the pharmaceutical, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each individual is free to chase his or her individual interests. One young man said that Daniel might rob the pharmaceutical if he liked his wife to reside; but that he doesn't have to if he likes to wed somebody junior and better-looking. Another young man said Daniel might rob it because maybe they had children and he might require somebody at dwelling to gaze after them. But perhaps he shouldn't rob it because they might put him in jail for more years than he could stand (Kohlberg 16).

What is right for Daniel, then, is what encounters his own self-interests. You might have observed that children at both stages 1 and 2 converse about punishment. However, they see it differently. At stage 1 penalty is joined up in the child's brain with wrongness; penalty "proves" that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in compare, penalty is easily a risk that one routinely likes to avoid (Kohlberg 76).

Although stage 2 respondents occasionally sound amoral, they manage have some sense of right action. This is an idea of fair exchange or equitable deals. The beliefs are one of coming back favors--"If you rub my back, I'll rub yours." To the Daniel article, topics often state that Daniel was right to rob the pharmaceutical because the druggist was reluctant to make an equitable deal; he was "trying to tear Daniel off," Or they might ...