Excerpt coming from Essay:
Kohlberg’s theory of moral advancement presents three levels with two phases each of moral reasoning. The key reason why or purpose for the behavior of an individual is what describes each stage (Crain, 1985). In order to come up with this developing theory Kohlberg carried out studies using different dilemmas and finding out how a subjects replied. His primary interest in the process is not only a “yes” or “no” said by the subject matter but rather the reasoning in back of the answer. By doing this he was able to demonstrate that people’s ethical reasoning progressed through a number of stages as discussed hereunder:
The 1st level is referred to as the “pre-conventional moral reasoning” and is typically related to kids of about the age of 10 years. At this stage the individual would not internalize honnête and the thinking is externally influenced (Jeremy et ing., 2000). The consumer categorizes a great act as good or bad depending on the consequences and in relation to the arranged rules, in fact children as of this level don’t realize the rules that have been set straight down by other folks thus the name “pre-conventional, ” the first and second stage fall under this kind of level.
Level one is wherever punishment and obedience impact actions, at this stage moral decisions made by individuals are based on the worry of punishment. Individuals evaluate their activities not when it comes to goodness or perhaps badness but rather in terms of conceivable punishment, plus the emphasis is usually on obeying power (McDevitt and Ormrod, 2007). Individuals tend to act in a way that evades punishment and whether an action is right or perhaps wrong depends upon whether it is reprimanded or not really. Children through this age bracket will obey guidance because they have been told simply by adults also because if they don’t they are punished by adults. As an example, a six-year-old boy will refrain from cheating in examinations because he seems he will get caught and be reprimanded by the teacher, therefore , the reasoning is that cheating in exams can be bad because it is punishable.
Stage two is usually characterized by specific self-interest and exchange of favors. At this stage the individual decides what is correct or incorrect by the prize that is placed on it. McDevitt and Ormrod (2007) explain that anytime an action great to the person and is also rewarding it is grouped as good, the will get worried about others’ needs if they have something to gain from that rather than out of loyalty, justice or honor. At this stage a nine-year-old boy will feel it is right to be unfaithful in exams because he will get a better report and he could be interested in getting a better report, thus, the reasoning is the fact cheating is definitely rewarding and meets his self-interest, therefore it is good.
The second level may be the “conventional moral reasoning” which is commonly present in the society hence the name “conventional, ” it really is typically connected with individuals between the age of eight and adolescence. With a decrease in egocentrism, the individual now tends to consider others in moral thinking. Instead of browsing morals regarding personal consequences, the individual today considers other’s ethics in making moral decisions such as others’ approval, commitment to the family members, obeying the set regulations, and contouring to the interpersonal order (Power et ‘s., 1989). The individuals include achieved more advanced internalization of morals or what might be referred to as the “conventions” from the society, this kind of level contains the third and fourth phases of Kohlberg’s theory.
The first stage at this level is stage three and individuals at this time are characteristic of looking for approval or evading disapproval. In order to figure out what is right and wrong then this approval of people who are close, such as friends and family, must be considered (Power ainsi que al., 1989). Whatever pleases others is regarded as good while anything that other folks disapprove of is poor. The meaningful judgment of such an specific is based on the trust, treatment and commitment to others. At this time individuals often adopt the moral standards of those who have are close to them. In such a case, a fourteen-year-old boy will not likely cheat within an exam as they feels his parents will be ashamed of him when they get to know of it, considering that the parents disapprove of
