Stages of Moral Reasoning From his research, he identified six stages of reasoning at three levels.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation

Level One: Pre-conventional Morality

Level Two: Conventional Morality

Level Three: Post-Conventional Morality

Movement through the Stages Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is a stage theory. In other words, everyone goes through the stages sequentially without skipping any stage. However, movement through these stages are not natural, that is people do not automatically move from one stage to the next as they mature. In stage development, movement is effected when cognitive conflict occurs ... that is when a person notices inadequacies in his or her present way of coping with a given moral dilemma. But according to stage theory, people cannot understand moral reasoning more than one stage ahead of their own. For example, a person in Stage 1 can understand Stage 2 reasoning but nothing beyond that. Therefore, we should present moral arguments that are only one stage ahead of a person's present level of reasoning to stimulate movement to higher stages.

Consider your reaction to the scenario, The Overcrowded Lifeboat In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

The Fat Man and the Impending Doom A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

The Last Episode of Seinfeld, The cast of Seinfeld, Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer, have a layover in a small New England town. They witness a robbery in broad daylight. The robber has his hand in his pocket, and the victim shouts that the man has a gun. As soon as the robber runs away, a policeman appears on the scene; but instead of pursuing the robber, he arrests Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer for having violated the new "Good Samaritan" law of the town. Since the four of them spent the time of the robbery making fun of the victim, who was fat, their role in the matter doesn't look good, and at their trial everyone who has ever felt wronged by them in the course of the television series testifies against them. They are convicted. Is this just? What were they supposed to do during the robbery? Should they have rushed the robber, just in case he didn't really have a gun?

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Some questions to guide your thoughts 1. Should Heinz steal the drug? 1a. Why or why not? 2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug? 2a. Why is it right or wrong? 3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? 3a. Why or why not? 4. If Heinz doesn't love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do whether or not he loves his wife? 4a. Why or why not? 5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for the stranger? 5a. Why or why not?

6. Suppose it's a pet animal he loves. should Heinz steal to save the pet animal? 6a. Why or why not? 7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another's life? 7a. Why or why not? 8. It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it morally wrong? 8a. Why or why not? 9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law? 9a. Why or why not? 9b. How does this apply to what Heinz should do? 10. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing for Heinz to do? 10a. Why?

Two Brothers 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. 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?