The evolution of moral development.

As the child develops cognitively, he/she is able to bring these skills to bear in moral judgment. Cultural values are at least partially based on how people solved problems of morality. To a large extent these values serve as a guide for behavior in social interaction. Consequently, it is not possible to understand culture without an appreciation of the underlying morality and value system.

Kohlberg (1981) proposed 6 stages of moral development thought invariable for all people. The preconventional stage 1 evolves out of fear of punishment framing the child’s perception of what is moral. In stage 2 the child recognizes that immoral conduct has negative consequences and moral conduct positive outcomes and the child has developed the ability to make choices. In the third stage the child enters the conventional level where what is good is defined by approval from significant others, in particular the child’s parents and other important persons. In stage four, obedience to law becomes dominant determining what is considered good or bad. At stage five the child enters the postconventional level where morality is determined by the protection of individual rights and by the flexibility required by varying social requirements and circumstances. Finally, at stage six the individual becomes independent of institutions and social pressure, and moral conduct is determined by universal ethical principles. Kohlberg’s theory moves in stages from initial concern with punishment when the child is very young, to stages where social institutions and conformity define moral conducts, to finally individually defined moral principles.

In a review of 45 studies conducted in 27 countries Kohlberg’s theory was evaluated (Snarey, 1985). The research literature provided evidence for the universality of the first two stages, but not the following. Others have found similar results (Ma & Cheung, 1996). These research reviews call into question whether the higher stages of moral development proposed by Kohlberg are in fact universal. However, we must keep in mind that it is also at the higher stages where culture produces the greater variability. Further, we must note that Kohlberg, like other stage theorists, developed his morality concepts from studies of Western samples. It is in fact a major complaint that Kohlberg’s stages seem encapsulated in Western thought, and at least the last two have primarily emerged from Western liberal societies. Postconventional thinking would not get people much traction in Saudi Arabia or other totalitarian societies, where people who display this level of morality would spend their lives contemplating their noble thoughts from prison cells or worse.

Others have found evidence for the powerful influence of cultural axioms that can cancel moral development (Matsumoto, 1994). Chinese culture for example emphasizes collectivistic moral choices as influenced by working toward consensus, obeying law, and striving for harmony. These powerful cultural values would in most cases trump any moral stage development. Nevertheless there are probably dissidents in any culture with the moral courage to operate by universal principles of ethics developed individually. Further, Kohlberg’s theory has also been attacked for gender bias based since males and females view relationships in different ways affecting moral choices (Gilligan, 1982). Consequently the higher stages of moral development are not invariant, but heavily influenced by culture as one would expect when the child moves from family circles to social conformity required by prevailing cultural values. Edwards (1986) believed that comparative differences in moral stages pointed directly to differences in social organization and underlying cultural values. In particular to understand morality it is essential to examine the culture’s social structure and the broader environment.

Kohlberg largely agreed with these criticisms (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983). However the theory is subject to many additional criticisms. Shweder, Mahapatra and Miller (1990) argued that Kohlberg’s constructs were based on individualistic cultures and offered alternative moral views rooted in natural law using the family as a model. From this collectivistic perspective morality is based on duty to others rather than on rights of individuals (Shweder, Minow, & Markus, 2002). Ma (1988) offered an alternative based on Chinese morality that requires a person to behave consistent with the morality of the majority of society.

The review by Eckenberger and Zimba (1997) addressed the criteria that must be met in order to accept Kohlberg’s moral stages as universal. The first criterion is whether the moral stages are found in all cultures investigated. The answer is mainly in the affirmative as long as invariance in stage sequence is not expected. However, stage invariance is supported by the .85 correlation between age and stage suggesting the sequence of moral behavior is the same for most respondents. Do the stages appear in all the cultures examined? Here the authors found support for some of the early moral stages, but not the latter. Although research support universal development of moral reasoning in the early stages, the differences in the later moral stages may be what really counts in intercultural relations. For example, differences in moral development and the meaning of morality are real sources of conflict today between the Islamic world and the West. Acts considered blasphemy in Pakistan and other Islamic countries are behaviors governed by free speech in the West. These same acts of “free speech” produce the death penalty or vigilante action for the “offender” in Islamic countries.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 677