Theory of moral development

Piaget contributes significantly to the theory of moral development, by extending the cognitively-structural, stage-sequential and age-related formulations from his cognitive development work to moral development (Lockwood, 2009; Nucci, 2008; Tan, Parsons, Hinson & Sardo-Brown, 2003). He theorised based on his observation of the ways children play games and apply the game rules, concluding that children construct their moral values via interactions with the environment. He then divided children’s moral reasoning into two stages, namely heteronomous morality and autonomous morality.

Heteronomous morality. Children under the age of ten tend to demonstrate heteronomous morality, viewing rules as constant, inflexible and absolute as they perceive the rules to be set by an authority figure and thus must be obeyed. They base their moral judgement and behaviours on external forces, such as rules and the consequences of the

6

actions, rather than the intentions behind the actions, thus believing that immediate punishment is inevitable when rules are broken, yet they are unable to explain why certain acts are forbidden or undesirable. This stage of moral reasoning is closely associated with young children’s cognitive structure of ego centrism, whereby young children at this stage tend to focus more on self than perceiving issues from others’ perspective.

Autonomous morality. Children’s moral reasoning shifts from the heteronomous to autonomous moral orientation after the age of ten as they become less self-centred to become more considerate and able to demonstrate perspective-taking. They begin to view rules as flexible and negotiable, thus application of rules is selectively and based on situations. They understand rules as cooperatively developed based on mutual respect and reciprocity, instead of associating rules to power. When a rule is broken, the older children tend to consider both the outcomes and the intentions of the acts, and together work out a resolution which they deem as fair to all. This interpersonal interaction and cooperation process aids in the children’s moral development, thus Piaget emphasised on cooperation and problem solving for moral education.

Another influential contributor to the field of moral education and psychology is Lawrence Kohlberg. In consistent with Piaget, Kohlberg argued that it will be myopic to simply view moral development as culture and value transmission from parents; instead, children can be philosophers, having their own morality (Carpendale, 2000; Kohlberg, 1981).

Kohlberg built his theory on the foundation of Piaget’s early work on cognitive and moral development. He took reference to Piaget’s conception of stages and developed the theory of moral development in a more extensive manner encompassing three levels with six stages (Crain, 1985; Kohlberg, 1981; Lickona, 1994; Lockwood, 2009; Nucci, 2008; Tan, Parsons, Hinson & Sardo-Brown, 2003; Tong, 1993). The stages are age-related and in hierarchical

7

order, with each stage being qualitatively different from the other. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development are listed in Table 1.

Pre-conventional level. The pre-conventional level is most common in young children.

At this level, children behave to avoid punishment. In stage one, children view rules as fixed and absolute and fail to see the perspectives of other. They tend to obey the rules in order to avoid punishment. As the children move to stage two, they begin to take note of their individual opinions and tend to behave in a reciprocal way and react to immediate interest.

Conventional level. The conventional level brings one to out of the ego-centric phase to consider the society and is typical of teenagers and adults. At this level, one will behave to conform to the social roles and expectations of the community or society. Stage three delineates that one conforms to the majority’s stereotypical expectation in order to gain good relationships with surrounding people, usually community or family. When one decides to comply with the law and order to maintain social order, one has reached stage four. Kohlberg (1981) found that most people hardly go beyond stage four to attain higher stages of moral development.

Post-conventional level. At the post-conventional level, individual has internalised moral reasoning and will tend to operate according to one’s own principles. At stage five, one

Table 1

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Level 1: Pre-conventional morality Stage 1: Punishment and obedience orientation Stage 2: Individualism and exchange

Level 2: Conventional morality Stage 3: Good interpersonal relationships Stage 4: Law and order

Level 3: Post-conventional morality Stage 5: Social contract and individual rights Stage 6: Universal principles

Adapted from “The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice,” Vol. 1., p.409-412 , by L. Kohlberg, 1981, San Francisco: Harper & Row. Copyright 1981 by Lawrence Kohlberg.

8

begins to realise that while laws are important for maintaining social order, one should take into account of differing views and rights in order to maintain a social system that benefits the people. The highest stage emphasises on the universal principles of justice and human rights and one should follow these abstract universal principles even if they are in conflict with the laws.

Kohlberg’s theory suggests moral education programmes to be developmentally appropriate and provides moral reasoning that is a stage above the students’ existing one. He advocates the use of moral dilemma discussions and “just community” to resolve complex moral issues. Faced with moral dilemmas, one encounters cognitive dissonance, and requires reasoning and rationalising through one’s values to achieve the next stage of moral development. If one is unable to comprehend the moral reasoning at one stage, one may not be able to reach a higher level of moral maturity.

There are criticisms to Kohlberg’s theory. Kohlberg claims that the stage is universal and can transcend across culture. However, there are views that his theory emphasises on individualistic culture on the Western countries and may not be as applicable to Asian countries with collective culture (Crain, 1985; Tan, Parsons, Hinson & Sardo-Brown, 2003).

Different individuals in various cultures develop through the stages at different rates. Gilligan (1993) argued that Kohlberg’s theory is male-oriented, focusing too much on rationality; and as compared to the male counterparts, the females are more inclined to interpersonal relationships. Based on Kohlberg’s scale, woman may have difficulties going beyond stage 3 (Tong, 1993). While Kohlberg has offered a detailed stage sequence for moral thinking, the effects of moral emotions and behaviours may not have been emphasised in the theory (Lickona, 1994; Nodding 1992, 2002).

9