Kohlberg and Morality

Presented by Tom Fogerty

Lawrence Kohlberg• Born in 1927, growing up in

Bronxville, New York• Attended Andover Academy in

Massachusetts, a demanding private high school

• After high school worked as an engineer while helping in the Israeli cause.

• He then attended the University of Chicago for undergrad and graduate studies

• Taught at the University of Chicago and Harvard.

• Published his dissertation in 1958 at the University of Chicago

Kohlberg’s Study• Kohlberg studied Piaget in the study of moral judgment

and moral philosophy. However Kohlberg thought it was incomplete and worked to develop more.

• Kohlberg study was of children in the Chicago area. He would pose dilemmas and use their answers and reasoning behind the answer to determine the moral development.

• Kohlberg changed from Piaget’s two-stage theory and created his six-stage theory.

Level 1- Preconventional Morality

Stage 1- Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Morality based on punishments and rewards. Judgment formed according to external authorities

Stage 2- Individualism and ExchangeMorality is now reciprocal.Seek individuals best interest, only help if it is in our best

interest

Level 2- Conventional Morality

Stage 3- Good Interpersonal RelationshipsDesire to be “good” in family and communities eyesGood motives and good feelings; love, trust, etc.

Stage 4-Maintaining the Social OrderConcerned with society as a wholeObeying laws, respecting authority

Level 3- Postconventional Morality

Stage 5- Social Contract and Individual RightsThink of society in a theoretical way, ask why is this

good for society?Want certain rights and freedoms

Stage 6- Universal PrinciplesThe principles by which we achieve justice

Question:Will athletes be classified at a lower moral development

than non athletes?

My StudyKohlberg’s study used children 10-16 to determine the different levels

of moral development. Kohlberg posed 8 dilemmas with the questions and used the answers received to determine moral development.

As an athlete and the University of Dallas I find that often I receive a bad reputation from different faculty and students because they assume as an athlete I do not meet the standard of the normal UD student. I’ve been accused of being less moral than those students who do not participate in athletics. My study will use two of Kohlberg’s dilemmas given to athletes and non athletes to determine if there is a different level of moral development between the two groups.

Hypothesis

As an athlete I will have obvious bias, however I do not believe that one group will be of a higher moral development than the other. I think that they will both be equal and will cover a range of the moral developments.

The First Dilemma

Two young men, brothers, had got into serious trouble. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a retired old man who was known to help people in town. He told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a thousand

dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old man to lend him the money and promised that he would pay him back when he recovered.

Really Bob wasn't sick at all, and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the old man didn't know Bob very well, he lent him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a thousand dollars.

Questions

• 1a. Which is worse, stealing like Karl or cheating like Bob? 1b. Why is that worse?

• 2. What do you think is the worst thing about cheating the old man?• 2a. why is that the worst thing?• 3. In general, why should a promise be kept?• 4. Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don't know well

or will never see again?• 4a. Why or why not?• 5. Why shouldn't someone steal from a store?• 6. What is the value or importance of property rights?• 7. Should people do everything they can to obey the law?• 7a. Why or why not?• 8. Was the old man being irresponsible by lending Bob the money?• 8a. Why or why not?

Terms for Assessment

• Value- Modes of attributing moral value to acts and persons. Modes of assessing value-consequences in the situation.

• Choice- The methods taken to resolve the conflict. The chosen outcome in the situation.

• Rule- The Concept of duty or moral compulsion.

• Good Self- The Role of the good person, the act of cheating.

• Justice- Concern for the relation of one event to another, standards of exchange and punishment and reward.

• Laws – The reasoning behind why laws are followed or why the laws are needed.

Dilemma Coding Forms

Athletes Final StagesAthlete Number Value Choice Rule

Cheating/Good Self Justice Laws Final Stage

1 0 4 0 1 4 4 3

2 0 4 0 3 4 4 4

3 0 2 0 2 4 4 3

4 3 2 0 2 4 4 4

5 0 2 0 5 4 4 4

Non Athletes

Non Athlete Number Value Choice Rule Cheating/Good

Self Justice Laws

Final Stage

1 0 4 0 2 1 4 3

2 0 2 0 4 5 4 4

3 0 2 2 2 5 3 3

4 0 2 0 4 5 3 3

5 0 2 0 4 5 4 4

Conclusion

My hypothesis was correct because both groups had a number of 3’s and number of 4’s. This is also in the middle of the moral

development stages.

Limitations

Problems with my research is that I did not have a very large group of people, I would

like to survey a much larger group of people. Also if possible I would like to ask

all of the same dilemmas that Kohlberg asked.