The first level is the pre-conventional level, where a child’s sense of morality is controlled externally. Children will believe the rules of authority figures like parents and teachers, and they judge an action based on its consequences. The second level is the conventional level. During this stage, an individual’s sense of morality is linked between personal and societal relationships. Children will continue to accept the rules of authority figures, but this is because they are beginning to realize that its necessary to ensure good relationships and societal order. Lastly, the third stage is the post-conventional level. Kohlberg says a person’s sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values. People are now beginning to believe how some laws are unfair and should be eliminated.
This level is highlighted by a realization that people are all separate entities and that people may disobey rules that don’t go along with their principles. Some theories predict that many people will not reach this level of moral reasoning. Questions still do remain whether or not his stages accurately describe moral development in members of collectivist cultures. A collectivistic culture is more about the needs and wants of the group rather than the individual. In this culture, relationships with other group members and the interconnectedness between people play a huge role in the identity of each person. Cultures in Asia, Central America, South America, and Africa tend to be more collectivistic. (Seong) Kohlberg’s theory seems pretty cut and dry when referring to individualistic cultures. However, there are major differences between the two cultures. Where unity and selflessness are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are highly stressed in individualistic cultures. (Seong) These differences could make it so his theory might not apply as well to collectivist cultures. Kohlberg’s first level, second level, and third level will all be applied to collectivist cultures to try and find out if his theory takes into account the vastly different cultures.
Firstly, Kohlberg’s first level is pre-conventional morality. There are two stages in this level. The first stage is obedience and punishment orientation. Stage 1 describes the child’s desire to obey authority figures to avoid being punished. This can go along with just about any culture. For example, if a child gets in trouble the act is perceived as bad because the child is punished; the worse the punishment the worse the act is to the child. This first stage can also apply to collectivist cultures because this stage has nothing to do with how the society functions. The second stage of the pre-conventional level is instrumental orientation.
Stage 2 expresses the “what do I get out of it?” stance, where behavior is described as whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest. Stage two shows limited interested in the needs of others, only showing care for others if it might further their own interests. As a result, care for others is not based on loyalty or respect, but rather if you help me I’ll help you mentality. For example, if a parent asks a child to do a chore, the child asks “what’s in it for me?” So the parents offer the child money if the child does the chore. This stage does not take into account collectivist cultures. Kohlberg describes how in this stage the child shows limited interested in the needs of others. This does not apply well to collectivist cultures because in those cultures the wants and needs of others are just as important. Kohlberg is being biased towards individualistic cultures. This is because the vast majority of whom he tested were white males and did not take into account how other cultures worked.
The second level is Conventional Morality. At this stage children—who are by now usually entering their teens-see morality more than simple deals. (Crain) Children believe people should live up to the expectation of the family and community and behave in “good” ways. (Crain) This stage can apply to members of collectivist cultures; because members of collectivist cultures tend to think more about the community than individualistic cultures. Even though his theory was biased towards individualistic cultures, the third stage does apply to collectivist cultures. On the other hand, stage 4 includes respecting the authorities and following the rules, as well as doing a person’s duty. (Crain) The society becomes a person’s main consideration. This level applies well to collectivist cultures, probably even more than individualistic cultures. The theory takes into account people wishing to follow the rules and respect authorities which is highly prevalent in collectivist cultures.
Lastly, the third level is post-conventional morality. At stage 5, people begin to question what actually makes up a good society. People will think about the society in a very theoretical way, taking a step back from their own society and consider the rights and values a society should hold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. (Crain) Stage 5 respondents believe a good society is like a social contract where everyone goes to work for the benefit of all. This seems to apply towards collectivist cultures perfectly. Stage 6 on the other hand, describes people who have developed their own set of moral guidelines regardless if they fit the law. Kohlberg doubted that few people would reach this stage. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr is a prime example of a stage 6 person. He went against the law and fought for what he thought was right. In regard to collectivist cultures, this may not be as prevalent but it could be the case. If Kohlberg would have used more Eastern influence in his research, his theory could have been better, but nonetheless, it could still apply to collectivist cultures.
In conclusion, Lawrence Kohlberg took Piaget’s theory and developed the theory even further. He gained a lot of ground in the theory of moral development and helped us to try and understand development more. Of course, Kohlberg still receives a good deal of criticism. Not everyone is enthusiastic at the thought of a post-conventional morality. Others brought up the argument that his stages are culturally biased. This can be believed to be true because Kohlberg did not use very much Eastern influence on his theory at all. He made his stages without considering that other cultures might have different moral outlooks, which can lead to a faulty outcome. While others have also argued that his research has been sexually biased. Most of his participants were white males, and some have argued that the lack of women influence creates a flaw in his theory. If Kohlberg would have just used a bigger variety of participants from all ethnic backgrounds, then his theory could have proven to be more accurate and provoke less criticism.
