CRITICAL EVALUATION OF KOHLBERGs THEORY

Background
Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further. He used Piagets story-telling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas. In each case he presented a choice to be considered for example between the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is being unfairly treated. One of the best known of Kohlbergs (1958) stories con cerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe. Heinzs wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug and this was much more than the Heinz could afford. Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later. The chemist refused saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemis ts and stole the drug. Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as: 1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug? 2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife? 3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference? 4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died? By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions Kohlberg hoped to discover the ways in which moral reasoning changed as people grew. Kohlberg told several dilemma stories and asked many such questions to discover how people reasoned about moral issues. He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning each with two sub stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. Kohlberg stages of moral development are: Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions. Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished they must have done wrong. Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. Level 2 - Conventional morality Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. Stage 3 - Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers are related to the approval of others.

 Stage 4 - Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society so judgments concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt. Level 3 - Post-conventional morality Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinzs dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing. Stage 6 - Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone e.g, human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

Critical Evaluation Gender and cultural bias

The theory was originally validated on a relatively small sample of white, middle-class American males less than 17 years of age. Thus the theory is androgenic or centered on males. Although some investigators have found cross-cultural support for Kohlbergs theory, others have found that in certain circumstances, such as the lifestyle of the communal Israeli kibbutz what is viewed as a higher level of morality differs from the value systems Kohlberg suggested. Apart from that the theory is ethnocentric (perspective biased towards ones culture and judging others basing thereof) and eurocentric (that is biased towards the west) where people are generally individualistic hence lacking a cosmopolitan perspective. Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not account for. It may therefore not apply in communal or collective societies because of its parochial nature. It is also argued that the scenario or dilemma responses were somewhat based on intuition that is instinctive knowledge or insight without conscious reasoning.

Stage theories
Stages of moral development seem to be less domain general than Kohlbergs the ory suggests. According to Austin, Ruble and Trabasso, moral judgments were affected by the order in which intentions and consequences were presented, and no age difference when they controlled for retention of information. The level of peoples responses may vary, depending on the particular scenario to which they respond. In essence given different scenarios or dilemmas, peoples responses may render them classified into different stages which may rather compromise the reliability and validity of the theory. Further, evidence indicates that, contrary to the assumption of stage theories,

people may regress to earlier stages of moral reasoning under certain circumstances such as under stress.

Ignorance of relationships
It does not adequately reflect relationships and concern for others i.e, Justice perspective focuses on right of the individual. Kohlberg fails to adequately reflect the connectedness with and concern for others in individuals. Carol Gilligan argues that Kohlbergs theory emphasizes a justice perspective that is a focus on the rights of the individual rather than a care perspective that sees people in terms of their connectedness. He does not view the family to be critical in a childs development. He does not consider there to be evidence of the family being a uniquely necessary setting.

Moral thought and moral behavior

Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Kohlbergs own finding that people can regress in their behavior points out the weak link that often exists between thought/reasoning an d action/behavior. The link between moral thought and moral behaviour is often weak thought does not necessarily translate into behaviour. Kohlberg needless to say put too much emphasis on moral thought than on moral behaviour. Moral judgment refers to the intellectual or reasoning ability to evaluate the goodness or rightness of a course of action in a hypothetical situation. Moral behavior refers to the individuals ability in a real life situation to resist the temptation to commit immoral acts. Someone may indeed nurture a higher level of moral development, but not act in ways consistent with that understanding. This inconsistency is an element of cognitive dissonance in social psychology reflecting a discrepancy often existing between attitude/thought/reasoning and subsequent behaviour. The implication here is therefore that people in essence often preach what they themselves do not practice.

Moral Values
Kohlberg emphasized on cognitive reasoning about morality but overlooked other aspects of moral maturity such as character and virtue that operate to solve moral problems in everyday life. The theory does not differentiate between social convention and moral issues in which an example of a convention may be- receive things with both hands and an example of a moral issue maybe do not steal.

Conclusion
Kohlberg's accomplishment is great. He has not just expanded on Piaget's stages of moral judgment but has done so in an inspiring way. He has studied the development of moral reasoning as it might work its way toward the thinking of the great moral philosophers. So, although few people may ever begin to think about moral issues like Socrates, Kant, or Martin Luther King, Kohlberg has nonetheless provided us with a challenging vision of what development might be.