Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

[Zephyr]

Almost everybody who's taken a Psychology course has heard this one...


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 $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.

The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 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 it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?

-----------------------------------

Explain your answer, then go here (http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm) to see which of the 6 stages your reasoning follows.

[2D]

I believe everyone was in the wrong. The druggist had no reason to charge that much other than greed. The man who stole was stealing for a noble cause, but he was breaking the law. This all could have been avoided if he only change $1000 or less.

[Sage]

I don't believe one should put a price on what it takes to save a life- Were more people to put profits before people, we'd just have a harsher world for everyone. Assholes profit, everyone else dies. Now, I'm a big advocate of dealing with your own problems, strife builds character and all that, and the individual can solve more problems than they'd think, but this is just ridiculous. If you are in possession of something that can save lives and choose not to, you're horrible.

Now, should he have stolen the drugs? Yes. As the druggist was being unreasonable in his practice, it is only right that one steps beyond the law to do what is right. What's the greater injustice- That a druggist (who, if his product was good, would make a good profit anyway) lose a sum of money, or that the love of a man's life pays for her illness with her life?

The initial wrong was that the druggist charged so much for his drug. The secondary, but justified, wrong is that the man thus stole it. People are a product of their environments, one cannot blame another for doing whatever it is they need to do to survive. In this case, it meant stealing. A better way this could be handled would be if the druggist simply agreed to take a margin of the cost initially and allow the man to repay him over time.

Edit: I really fail to see where I am on this scale, as the entire thing sort of implies that morality is objective. What is best for an individual to do is not what is best for everyone or a population to do.

Edit: I give myself a 7.

[CuriousDestruction]

oh, i love the heinz dilemma. i am stage six in moral development.

[Ripplemagne]

Deschain, aren't you an atheist? Stage Seven is Transcendental Morality and bases one's view on a higher power.

Based on your answer, I'd say you're Stage Four or Five.

As much as we'd all like to say we're Stage Six, lets be honest: not everyone is. I, myself, am between Stages Five, Six and Seven. Though, I think the latter is actually a bifactor and can be inserted into any part of the list.

My answer for the Heinz Dilemma falls under Stage Six, but I am not consistently attended to Stage Six. However, a Stage Six puts too much emphasis on a universal code of ethics and I find that Stage Five incorporates a better element of understanding. Based on my administration of ARG, for example, I've made calls where I've ignored my own rules in favor of what was morally justifiable and I've continually derided other staff members for being, what I refer to as, protocol drones.

I'd say I'm closer to a six than I am to a five and I'm unequivocally opposed to deontology (as evidenced by much of my debating in the past.) However, I also have a grounded concept in my religious beliefs.

I may very well be a 6(7) because I can find nothing that directly contrasts with my views and outlooks on things, but there are a number of things I agree with in five as well.

[Sapphire]

Very few adults reach stage 6. Someone whose moral reasoning consistently falls under the 6th stage is rare indeed.

[Ripplemagne]

Bets in. How many 14-16 year olds do you think are going to post, saying that they're a level 6? XD

[Jean Poutine]

My answer was "serves the overselling bitch right". Who cares about the motherfucker who was trying to make money? He tried to pull a fast one and got punked by his better. He amply deserves it for being a thieving idiot. Society shapes the pursuit of profit. It's a common sickness in the American Dream.

Society's wrong in this case. The man defying it was right.

Stage 4 1/2.

This is still stupid. I understand that each stage of development is meant to illustrate a more complex conception of ethics and morals. There are situations which you need to live to have an answer to.

I could have answered "he should have stolen it because the right to life is universal" or somesuch, but I wasn't a presumptuous dick and gave a truthful answer. He's right to steal it because his wife needed it and the seller was a borderline criminal and deserved to get schooled. Are you really going to deblaterate on why you shouldn't have stolen it because others than your loved one may need it and their life is worth as much as your wife's while she dies of cancer? Is the universal right of life the first thing that's going to go by your head while your bro, or sis, or dad, lays there agonising? I seriously, honestly doubt it. Try not to be pretentious for a change.

BTW - you're not stage 6. I know everyone on here likes to be special flowers, so I'll be square. Unless you want to compare yourself to Gandhi, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and other great thinkers and moralists, in which case, why don't you write a book or do something equally worthwhile instead of posting on VT?

Bets in. How many 14-16 year olds do you think are going to post, saying that they're a level 6? XD

As opposed to 19 years olds who claim as much?

I really fail to see the difference.

In his study, Kohlberg had difficulty even proving the existence of stage 6, much less 7. We have at least two here, just in this topic, claiming either. Call Kolhberg and tell him the bastion of universal morality is here on VT.

[Sapphire]

If someone claims to be at stage 6 then I would be very skeptical regardless of their age. If a couple of independent and objective people rated someone as being at stage 6 across a number of scenarios that they have encountered in real life and have had put to them then I would believe it.

Tbh, I have not heard of Kohlberg putting forward a seventh stage from any of my teachers in school or lecturers in uni so I am also skeptical about the existence of that.

[Ripplemagne]

I could have answered "he should have stolen it because the right to life is universal" or somesuch, but I wasn't a presumptuous dick and gave a truthful answer. He's right to steal it because his wife needed it and the seller was a borderline criminal and deserved to get schooled. Are you really going to deblaterate on why you shouldn't have stolen it because others than your loved one may need it and their life is worth as much as your wife's while she dies of cancer? Is the universal right of life the first thing that's going to go by your head while your bro, or sis, or dad, lays there agonising? I seriously, honestly doubt it. Try not to be pretentious for a change.

You're missing the point. It's a theory which can have different bifactors and is going in a general sense.

As opposed to 19 years olds who claim as much?

I really fail to see the difference.

In his study, Kohlberg had difficulty even proving the existence of stage 6, much less 7. We have at least two here, just in this topic, claiming either. Call Kolhberg and tell him the bastion of universal morality is here on VT.


Read my post, clearly. And yes, nineteen and sixteen are two entirely different developmental stages. By nineteen, it's reasonable to have gone through the preceding stages, but during puberty, your thought processes are altered so regularly that this is practically impossible.

Tbh, I have not heard of Kohlberg putting forward a seventh stage from any of my teachers in school or lecturers in uni so I am also skeptical about the existence of that.


Look it up. It was never made official.

[Sapphire]

Read my post, clearly. And yes, nineteen and sixteen are two entirely different developmental stages. By nineteen, it's reasonable to have gone through the preceding stages, but during puberty, your thought processes are altered so regularly that this is practically impossible.
Actually, you claiming to have reached the sixth stage is almost as incredible as someone who is only a few years younger. Why? The answer is simple. Very few people ever reach that final stage in their lifetime.

[Ripplemagne]

Actually, you claiming to have reached the sixth stage is almost as incredible as someone who is only a few years younger. Why? The answer is simple. Very few people ever reach that final stage in their lifetime.

Read my post again. I didn't say I was a level six. I said I may be and this is also based on the viewpoints of other people I've asked. And I've even given insight as to how.

Now, when accounting for age, you have to take bifactors such as puberty, hormonal shifts and the innumerable amount of phases a teenager will go through. After eighteen, any stage is reasonable. Before then, there are too many changes going on in the person for such a claim to be valid.

And yes, I'm aware that few people ever reach the final stage. I even mentioned that in my first post. That's irrelevant because it's a universally accepted fact that I'm awesome. <3

[Sapphire]

I never said that it was feasible for a teenager to reach level 6.
I've merely pointed out that the vast majority of people spend a number of decades on this planet and still don't reach stage 6 and that for any of us to claim that we have reached it before we've even reached our mid-twenties is not credible in light of that.And yes, I'm aware that few people ever reach the final stage. I even mentioned that in my first post. That's irrelevant because it's a universally accepted fact that I'm awesome. <3You didn't mention it in your first post, I did. You simply said that not everyone is at stage 6.

As a side-note, you are not universally accepted as being awesome :P

[Ripplemagne]

I never said that it was feasible for a teenager to reach level 6.
I've merely pointed out that the vast majority of people spend a number of decades on this planet and still don't reach stage 6 and that for any of us to claim that we have reached it before we've even reached our mid-twenties is not credible in light of that.

I disagree with that. While it's unlikely to reach before reaching mid-twenties, it is acceptable in that thephase of mental fluctuations has ended. I can identify every stage of my life where I've been a preceding stage and thoroughly identify how my thinking differed from then to now. In fact, I can remember a plethora of situations off the top of my head where stage five or six would be the only applicable stage to describe how my moral behavior was conducted.

You didn't mention it in your first post, I did. You simply said that not everyone is at stage 6.

Implication, sweet pea.

As a side-note, you are not universally accepted as being awesome

Of course I am, those among us who deny it are categorized in the same light as flat earthers.

[Sapphire]

I disagree with that.As is your prerogative.

Of course I am, those among us who deny it are categorized in the same light as flat earthers.
Lol, your undeserved ego never fails to amaze and amuse me.

[Ripplemagne]

My ego is quite deserved. Though, it amuses me when my ego intimidates others so readily. ;)

[Sapphire]

I'm interested as to why you think it intimidates me that you have such a high opinion of yourself (deserved or not).

[Ripplemagne]

You're so easy. Hahaha.

[Sapphire]

Lol.

[Jean Poutine]

You're missing the point. It's a theory which can have different bifactors and is going in a general sense.

Alright, fat troll, I'll bite.

You're missing the point. It's sophism that believes that thought is the same as action.

I said that I could easily say that I would rap about universal morality while my wife lays there dying. After all, that's the "right" answer huh? Would I actually do it? Hell no. And you wouldn't either, I guarantee it.

Like saying "sure I'd shoot that bastard". You're saying that now. Ever shot a gun, or even pointed one at a man? It's miles more difficult than it may seem to be at first glance, from a moral point of view. Which is why Kohlberg's theory is flawed.

Besides, there's much more to morality than just justice.

So you keep inflating your ego with tentative, incomplete theories. The bigger it is, the harder it blows when something finally deflates it. :rolleyes:

Read my post, clearly. And yes, nineteen and sixteen are two entirely different developmental stages. By nineteen, it's reasonable to have gone through the preceding stages, but during puberty, your thought processes are altered so regularly that this is practically impossible.

You're still a young pup at nineteen. It doesn't matter if it's a "different developmental stage" or not. You know nothing of life and neither do I.

Answering this kind of dilemma without the required life experience behind it is nonsense. Refer to "I'd shoot that bastard".

BTW

Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Although Kohlberg insisted that his theory was culturally inclusive, he found little empirical evidence to back this up. In all of his interviews, only a few people showed Stage 5 reasoning, and nearly all were well-educated Westerners. Stage 6 reasoning was never substantiated in interviews; Kohlberg created it as an "ideal" and pointed to examples such as Gandhi to support its existence. After a tremendous amount of criticism over the fact that Stage 6 was purely hypothetical, Kohlberg removed it from the empirical stages but retained it as a "theoretical construct in the realm of philosophical speculation." Despite equally heavy criticism, Kohlberg refused to remove Stage 5 from his system.

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/kohlbergs-theory-of-moral-reasoning

You comparing yourself to Gandhi now? Who's next, Mother Teresa? Why are you even here posting on VT?

[Ripplemagne]

You're missing the point. It's sophism that believes that thought is the same as action.

I said that I could easily say that I would rap about universal morality while my wife lays there dying. After all, that's the "right" answer huh? Would I actually do it? Hell no. And you wouldn't either, I guarantee it.

Like saying "sure I'd shoot that bastard". You're saying that now. Ever shot a gun, or even pointed one at a man? It's miles more difficult than it may seem to be at first glance. Which is why Kohlberg's theory is flawed.

Besides, there's much more to morality than just justice.

And once again, you're missing the point.

Once again, it's talking in a general sense. It doesn't matter what your exact answer to the Heinz dilemma is. What's important is your explanation of your decision, which determines where you are categorized in Kohlberg's theory.

You're stringing points together that don't even correlate with what I was positing in an attempt to stack up a straw man. I know you like to feel like you're oh-so kewl with your polemics, but you obviously don't even have a grasp of what theory is positing.

The Heinz dilemma doesn't ask you what you would do in the situation. Heinz already did what he wanted. The question is do you think it was right which implicitely aligns with the theory of morality because you're distinguishing right from wrong and giving your synopsis on why that is the case.

That's why Kohlberg's theory stands as strongly as it does. The individual has to actually cite why they believe what they do and each answer correlates with another response.

Yes, there is more to morality than justice, but the issue is rooted in your train of thought.

It seems to me that you are inherently butthurt about the idea that you're not at the peak of a theory, so you attempt to discredit it with baseless polemics. But, really, who gives a fuck? Does it impair you to be the best uchiwhatever you can be?

So you keep inflating your ego with tentative, incomplete theories. The bigger it is, the harder it blows when something finally deflates it.

rofl.

What are you talking about, sunshine? Does it validate your self worth to rattle on with unprovoked offense and pretend like you've actual done some sort of monumental task? Get real, son.

You're still a young pup at nineteen. It doesn't matter if it's a "different developmental stage" or not. You know nothing of life and neither do I.

Answering this kind of dilemma without the required life experience behind it is nonsense. Refer to "I'd shoot that bastard".


Speak for yourself. You may not know anything about life, but your lacking doesn't impair mine in the least.

Yes, I am still young, but that's irrelevant because I have experienced a multitude of things in my short time frame and I am beyond rapid hormonal development. But if you're so adamant about my deduction being false, then prove me wrong.

Find me a moral situation in which I acted contrary to how I am describing. Until then, just quit the attempt at Socratic dissection of my charater. Rest assure, you're playing a losing game in attempting to do so.

[Jean Poutine]

I had typed up a long post, but I scraped it and instead decided to post this picture that resumes my thoughts more succinctly than I could do with words :

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/7176/umad23xv.jpg

Nice job ignoring the quotes BTW. You certainly are Stage 6 in lateral movement.

[Ripplemagne]

You edited your post. Those quotes weren't there when I made my post. But I'll tackle it momentarily.

Nice try with he throwback 2005 meme though. Unfortunately, it only works when the person is, indeed, mad. As my posts contain nothing that would indicate that I'm mad, such a tired meme is as hollow as your mother's cranium when de Magne donkey punches her while slamming her in the pooper. Which in correlation with you scraping your response demonstrates to me that you're desperate to dent me and know you can't. Nice try, kiddo.

Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking.


And? I've given every basis on the spectrum for my deduction. You're grasping at straws.

http://www.healthline.com/galeconten...oral-reasoning

You comparing yourself to Gandhi now? Who's next, Mother Teresa? Why are you even here posting on VT?

Because posting on a forum is mutually exclusive with being of resounding quality. *Rolls eyes* I bet you're one of those people who post the "LOL INTERNET ARGUMENTS" image every time someone lientary-dips you in a debate.

You try too hard.