Psychology
The Development of Moral Reasoning Across Childhood and Adolescence
Quick fact
Kohlberg's stages were based on interviews where children and adults responded to hypothetical moral dilemmas, such as a man stealing a drug to save his dying wife.
Why this is interesting
Have you ever wonder why a young child says stealing is wrong simply because 'you'll get punished,' while a teenager might argue it's wrong because it violates someone's rights? Why do our moral justifications change so dramatically as we grow?
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Development of Moral Reasoning Across Childhood and Adolescence
Imagine moral reasoning as a ladder with three broad levels, each containing two steps. At the first level, the preconventional level (common in young children), right and wrong are judged by consequences: what leads to reward or punishment. For instance, a child might say, 'I shouldn't take the cookie because I'll get a time-out.' At the second level, the conventional level (typical of older children and many adolescents), moral decisions are based on social rules, expectations, and maintaining order. A teenager might say, 'It's wrong to cheat because it breaks the rules and disrupts trust.' At the third level, the postconventional level (reached by only some adults), reasoning is guided by abstract principles of justice and individual rights, sometimes even if they conflict with laws. For example, someone might argue that it's right to break an unjust law to uphold a higher moral principle. Kohlberg believed that progression through these stages is sequential—you cannot skip a stage—and that cognitive development and social experience drive the movement.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism behind these stages is rooted in cognitive development and social perspective-taking. As children age, their cognitive abilities grow—they can think more abstractly and see situations from multiple viewpoints. This allows them to internalize social norms (conventional level) and eventually to question and evaluate those norms against universal ethical principles (postconventional level). Kohlberg emphasized that moral reasoning is not about the decision itself but the quality of the reasoning behind it. His method used moral dilemmas to probe the 'why' behind choices. However, this theory has been critiqued: Carol Gilligan argued it was biased toward male-centric notions of justice and ignored care-based moral reasoning; also, thought does not always lead to action, as emotions and situational factors play a role. Nonetheless, Kohlberg's stages remain a powerful framework for understanding moral development across childhood and adolescence, influencing fields like moral education and the legal treatment of minors.