The Criticisms of Kohlberg's Moral Development Stages
Part One:The criticisms of Kohlberg's moral development stages seem to center around three major points, his research methods, the "regression" of stage four, and finally his goals.The first criticism that I would like to address is that of his research methods. Kohlberg is often criticized for not only his subject selection, but also the methods by which he tries to extricate data from those subjects. His initial study consisted of school boys from a private institution in Chicago. The problem with this is fairly obvious, that this does not represent a significant portion of the population to allow for generalized conclusions. In other words, how can we test some boys from Chicago and ascertain that this is how all people develop worldwide?I believe that the answer to this criticism comes from the theory that it relates to.
Kohlberg's moral development schema is highly dependent upon the idea that there are fundamental truths that cannot be dismissed. These ideas are "in the ether", wound into the very fabric that constructs human nature. Granted, his descriptions of the various stages also seem very dependent upon the surroundings and social institutions that an individual would be subjected to. Yet these institutions would be have to be built upon people, all of whom would share these ideological truths. It seems fairly obvious that all people have undeniable needs, survival and some group membership. Kohlberg's stages are merely methods by which one could fulfill these needs.
For instance, Spartan societies were adamant about maintaining the purity and strength of the civilization. Citizens saw no wrong in exposing a sick or lame baby to the elements so that it might die. Surely an act of cruelty today, but in that society, a necessary evil The prosperity and wealth of the whole was of greater importance than that of the individual.In addition to these justifications, additional research substantiated Kohlberg's claims. Different subjects were tested, from all ages and regions, and the same conclusions were drawn from the data. Assuming that these conclusions are correct, and the data leads to the same interpretation, is there any other possibility?
This argument seems most impressive, especially considering the differences between people that are evident in everyday life. Similarities ...
... middle of paper ...
...o a small compromise to fit their needs. In conclusion, it seems that there is definitely a way to combine the Kohlberg justice theme and the Gilligan caring theme of moral development. Mr.
Kohlberg provides a method to police a society that does not include 100 percent utopian citizens. Ms. Gilligan gives us the ability to relate to each and every person, as a person. She indicates ways that we can identify with their perspectives, understand their needs, and compromise.
Although the real world seems infinitely more complex than either of these models, they bear a frightening resemblance to real societies and real people. Maybe someday, a perfect model will be constructed, judged by a perfect path of moral development. Until then, I hope that I have found a good combination of these two ideas. One last side note: I think I could spend weeks typing a paper on this subject. There are thousands of facets of each system that could fit into the other's potential flaws. However, I think I've been long-winded enough as it is. I have tried to make my points as succinct and reasonable as possible, but without sacrificing exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you for your patience.
Kohlberg’s theory was often criticized for being culturally biased towards individualistic cultures because the third and highest level of morality pertained most to middle-class Americans (168). Erikson’s theory of stage development revolved around accomplishing certain psychological goals to develop onto the next stage of life. Whichever goal was completed, would determine if a person could move on happily or have problems along the way (Myers 170).
Conover sees correctional officers as multifaceted beings, neither inherently good nor bad, but as common people trying as we all do to behave well in demanding situations. In Newjack, Ted leaves his readers with the sense that for most officers accomplishment is more a matter of controlling the contradictions of genuine sympathy and warranted fury than conquering the kind of sadism portrayed in popular films.
moral development. In these stages, Kohlberg concentrates on the reasons why people act the way they do; not the way they think about their actions or what action they take, but the reasoning behind their actions.
In Kohlbergs moral stages five & six people begin to understand morals and social good then moral reasoning. Basic human rights become important as well as principles.
I noticed in Piaget stages of moral development Kevin is in the autonomous morality stage. Kevin has realized the rules at school and standards can be negotiated and or changed because his parents can get the school to change the rules or policies for his benefit. On Kohlberg’s stage Kevin, his behaviors can be related to the conventional level stage 4. Broderick and Blewitt describes Kohlberg’s conventional morality as “what is right depends on other’s approval or on the need to maintain social order” (pg. 261). Kevin’s peers react to his negative behaviors is effecting his moral
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is three levels consisting of two stages in each. Kohlberg’s Theory explains how a human’s mind morally develops. Level one is typically common in younger children. The two stages in level one are pre-conventional stages. Stage one is obedience and punishment driven; one will judge an action by the consequences given. Stage two is out of self interest. Level two is mostly common in teenagers. The stages in this level
Servant Leadership, found in Chapter Ten of the text Leadership: Theory and Practice, is a paradoxical approach to leadership. It begins with the innate desire to serve first, and then lead through servant hood. Servant Leadership, originating in the early 1970s, is similar to the skills and styles approach, focusing on leadership from the leader’s viewpoint and his behavior under the leadership. Under this style of leadership, the leaders are considerate of the followers needs, empathizing with and having compassion for the followers. A servant leader feels a social responsibility to the less privileged and is concerned with inequality among the followers. Through servant leadership, a servant leader will attempt to correct these social injustices and by enabling and empowering the followers while helping the followers in developing valuable personal skills. Servant leaders are ethical, projecting strong moral behavior towards the followers, taking leadership paths that serve the greater good of an organization, the community and even society as a whole.
Kohlberg’s theory of the stages of moral development has gained some popularity despite being controversial. The claim that the levels form a “ladder,” the bottom being the immature child with a pre-conventional level and the top being a post conventional ethical individual. The sequence is unvarying and the subject must begin at the bottom with aspirations to reach the top, possibly doing so. (7) Research confirms that individuals from different cultures actually progress according to Kohlbergs theory, at least to the conventional level. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development continue to provide a foundation for psychology studies of moral reasoning. (6)
The moral development of children can depend on many factors. Parenting and upbringing of the child, their environment, social environment, gender, and race are all aspects that can contribute to how a child develops their moral standards and expectations. Many psychologist have tried for several years to develop a theory to how morality is developed. One in particular is Lawrence Kohlberg (1958), his moral development theory is based on the cognitive development of children and it is thought that moral development proceeds and changes as cognitive development occurs (Arnett, 2012). Kohlberg’s moral development theory consist of 3 different levels each containing 2 stages altogether making 6 stages of moral development, as Kohlberg conducted
Greenleaf “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” Servant leaders put the needs of the employee first, they do not focus on themselves. A priority is put on meeting the needs of employees rather than one’s self. An example of such leadership in a hypothetical environment would be if a leader helped all team members first instead of himself. A servant leader would be a good listener, must be able to set a vison for employees and trust them. Although servant leadership is unorthodox as it’s difficult to use in an operation and apply in everyday situations. As Greenleaf (1977) stated “it is meant to be neither a scholarly treatise nor a how-to-do-it manual” (p.49). Servant leadership is very different from current views in organizations where often times they put the organizations profits before the individual. One can only hope this theory and model becomes more widely
What is moral development? In a nutshell, it’s the progression of morality throughout one’s lifetime by means of different stages. There are six of these stages, developed by Lawrence Kohlberg, that help to explain our moral choices and cognitive skills relative to our approximate age. Furthermore, as Kohlberg suggests, everyone reaches stages one through four: Punishment and Obedience, Instrumental Purpose and Exchange, Interpersonal Expectations and Conformity, and Law and order, respectively. Stage1 is characterized by the threat of punishment and the promise of reward. Stage 2 actions are
Leadership is a position of power, and given a certain level of respect. Therefore; a leader can not always relinquish their command to someone below them. Every person has the capability to be a leader, yet not every person can not be a leader at the same time. It is an important characteristic of all leaders to is to recognise higher authority, and thus “A leader leads by example, not by force.” (Stone, Russell, Patterson, 2004) Servant leadership shares all that same characteristics of other forms of leadership, but don 't have an issue with command structures. This issue is solved because all the followers and the leader have the same goal of service to the servant. An effective servant leader shares the power and allows for growth of the people being served. The characteristics that make a person 's form of leadership more like servant leadership include, the ten which Larry Spears compiled from Robert Greenliefs philosophy. The greater emphasis on: Awareness, listening, building the community and most importantly Foresight, separate a servant leader and other styles of leadership. I believe these traits take the leadership beyond the leader and allow the collective team to focus on the greater task, and effectively serve
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Assignment 2: The Theories of Piaget and Kohlberg. Many researchers have written about child development, but none are quite as well known as Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg. Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory and Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral development theory are essential for researchers to gain a better understanding of child development. While these theories are unique in explaining different types of child development, they have many similarities and differences as well.
According to Kohlberg, individuals progress through a series of stages in the evolution of their sense of justice and in the kind of reasoning that they utilize to make moral judgments (Feldman, R., 2013, p. 426). His work modified and expanded from Jean Piaget’s previous work to form a theory of cognitive development that explained how pre-adolescent children develop moral reasoning (Cherry, K., 2014, October 12). Kohlberg’s theory of moral development focuses on children’s ability to distinguish right from wrong based on their perception. His theory claims that individuals progress through the levels morality in a fixed order and