This article focuses on the higher developmental stages of morality, Kohlberg's sixth stage (he retracted the seventh stage originally proposed). They view it, correctly, as an inter-subjective stage, one that is necessarily defined in cultural interaction.
(Sorry about the funky font issues - too big a hassle to fix it.)
Read the whole article.Gerhard Sonnert Michael L. Commons
Department of Physics Department of Psychiatry
Harvard University Harvard Medical School
Sonnert, G., & Commons, M. L. (1994). Society and the highest stages of moral development. Politics and the Individual, 4(1), 31-55.
In this paper, a discussion of Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development results in a re-definition of Moral Stage 6, Kohlberg's highest stage. Our task here is to construct Moral Stage 6 in a non-arbitrary way that satisfies General Stage Model (Commons & Richards, 1984a) criteria for what constitutes a stage. Moral Stage 6 is found to manifest itself only inter-individually. At this stage, morality is no longer a property of individuals, as it is at earlier stages, but a property of the social enterprise of discourse. This leads to a novel politization of morality and, conversely, to a moralization of politics.
Challenging the prevalent relativism in the study of political ideology, a number of researchers have recently applied theories of moral development in this field (Emler, Renwick & Malone, 1983; Habermas, 1979; Rosenberg, 1988a, 1988b; Rosenberg, Ward & Chilton, 1988; Wagner, 1986, 1990; Weinreich-Haste, 1986). Whereas the relativist approach posits that a non-arbitrary, acultural evaluation of political ideologies is impossible, a theory of moral development provides the means for just such an evaluation. It can discover structural commonalities among seemingly unique and diverse political ideologies; it can order political reasoning in a non-relativist sequence; and it can point to possible avenues for the development of political thinking.
Modern societies have partially differentiated the political from the moral domain, developing areas of superficially moral-free political pragmatism. This is reflected in the popular distinction between "political" and "moral" questions: pragmatic compromising is considered acceptable in the former but unacceptable in the latter. A key mechanism for creating these relatively moral-free areas of politics is framing the issues in terms of continuous variables, first of all money. Continuous variables invite compromise and take the moral sting out of the issues. The moral difference between alternative tax-hike proposals of 2% and 4% is not obvious, and a compromise is generally welcomed. However, the absence of conspicuous morals in the political sphere of power-play and haggling is possible only on the basis of a widely-shared and unquestioned background belief that such politicking is justified within the given parameters.
Politics is not identical with morality, but political and moral reasoning are connected insofar as they both deal with issues of justice. Political legitimacy is the focal point where politics and morality converge. Individuals and social groups tend to grant legitimacy to, or withdraw it from, political institutions, programs, and decisions on the basis of whether or not they view them as just. Thus, political reasoning and behavior builds on moral judgments. As part of the wider effort of examining political reasoning and action from a developmental perspective, we introduce in this paper new descriptions of the highest stages of moral development and discuss their repercussions in the political domain.
Kohlberg has produced the most influential theory of moral development both within individuals (Kohlberg, 1969, 1984) and within society (Power, Higgins & Kohlberg, 1989). As a cognitive developmentalist, Kohlberg considered mathematical and logical intellectual operations, such as those used to discern amount, balance, and causality, to underlie moral operations, i.e., moral reasoning. The hierarchy of moral stages was thus grounded in cognitive functioning. Kohlberg showed that in the course of moral development, reasoning about justice increases in complexity and becomes more inclusive.
Cross-cultural data from over 30 societies indicate that people's development follows an invariant sequence, but that the end points of development vary (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987; Snarey, 1985). Movement through the developmental stages is unidirectional. Barring mental illness or loss of mental capacity, people's reasoning moves only up through the stages, never down, within test accuracy limits.
In what follows, we give our short interpretation of Kohlberg's stage theory. Kohlberg posits three periods of development in the moral domain: the preconventional, the conventional and the postconventional. Each of these three periods is subdivided into two stages so that Kohlberg's model comprises six stages of moral development (see Table 1).
The preconventional period (Moral Stages 1 and 2) begins in early childhood and extends through elementary school. At Moral Stages 1 and 2, people justify actions in terms of avoiding punishment and obtaining rewards. At these stages, people are particular persons ("myself" or "my parents") who do particular things ("If I don't keep my promises, then my parents won't trust me anymore"). Adults generally consider the moral reasoning of this period inadequate.The conventional period (Moral Stages 3 and 4) begins at the onset of post-elementary school education and extends across the life-span of all but a small portion of the population. This period generates the conventional norms of adulthood. Reasoning at each stage of this period contains enough logic that it can find its most elaborate expression in some current adult philosophy.
At Moral Stage 3, the Group stage, action is justified in terms of the reputation and characterization of the groups or individuals that are involved. Groups and people can, for instance, be good or bad, nice or nasty. Action is often judged on the basis of groups' or individuals' underlying sentiments or motives. Role and person may be confused.
At Moral Stage 3/4, the Bureaucratic stage, the reasons given for labeling an action as fair and good are logical and abstract. Bureaucratic norms, laws, rules, and regulations guide behavior and are seen as "given"; they cannot be changed to fit particular situations or individual needs. Role and person are no longer confused as they were at the previous stage.
At Moral Stage 4, the Institutional stage, the yardstick for evaluating the morality of an action is the preservation (or destruction) of a system--or a society. Norms, laws, rules and regulations now form a logically coherent system. Societal law is seen as a meaningful way of regulating rights or duties of individuals or groups. People at this stage reason in terms of how an action would affect their individual role and status within the system, or how it would affect the system's capability to function. Hence, there are tensions between societal and personal rights, and between societal and personal duties. Individuals experience such tensions, for instance, in the conflict between independence from and dependence on both others and the system. Most persons at this stage accept their subordination to the societal system. "What would happen to society if everyone...?" is a question characteristic of this stage. A minority of individuals rejects the system outright and totally and emphasizes individual independence.
The postconventional period (Moral Stages 5 and 6) begins sometime after adolescence; however, fully postconventional thinking and action appear only after early adulthood (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Some contemporary philosophies use postconventional arguments. In fact, Armon (1984b, 1989) has reinterpreted philosophical debates in terms of conventional versus postconventional arguments. In any known society, only a small portion of members achieves postconventional stages of reasoning.
At Moral Stage 5, the Universal stage, universal abstract principles form the basis of moral and political action. They emerge from notions of universal human rights and dignity. These principles have been articulated by members of a number of modern societies (Reiser et al., 1987). They have found their fullest expression in the works of philosophic, political, and religious thinkers. For example, a principle in Rawls' (1971) theory of justice posits that actions should not worsen the situation of the least advantaged.
Moral Stage 5 principles are universal and general in their application, irrespective of the particular persons affected. At this stage, society is seen first as a creation of individuals and second as the environment in which people develop. Emphasis on the interdependence between individuals and society reconciles the dependence stances and the corresponding independence stances of the previous stage. Moral Stage 5 principles not only serve the interest of individuals but also that of society. From a developmental-stage perspective, the principles coordinate the rights and the duties of the individual with those of society. The methods of decision-making are due processes ranging from lotteries to voting, with a preference for joint decision-making. Unconventional decisions may be sanctioned as long as they appear reasonable in the light of higher principles.
Kohlberg (1969, 1981; Kohlberg, Levine & Hewer 1983) also posited a Moral Stage 6. This proved to be the most problematic stage in his model for conceptual and empirical reasons. Kohlberg had problems in articulating the logical and conceptual difference between Moral Stage 6 and Moral Stage 5 (Diessner & Commons, in preparation). And empirically, he found it difficult to identify subjects reasoning at Moral Stage 6 (Kohlberg, Levine & Hewer, 1983, p. 60).
No comments:
Post a Comment