Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development
1652465677 maxresdefault.jpg

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory claims that our development of moral reasoning happens in six stages: 1. Obedience and Punishment, 2. Self-interest 3. Interpersonal Accord and Conformity 4.Authority and maintaining social order, 5.Social Contract, 6.Universal Ethical principles.

Kohlberg claims that we reach one stage after another showing an ever-deeper understanding of moral questions. The stages themselves are structured in three levels: Pre-Conventional, Conventional and Post-Conventional.

Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development

Subscribe to: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-RKpEc4eE9PwJaupN91xYQ

A special thank you to our patrons: Avigail, Badrah, Cedric Wang, David Markham, Denis Kraus, Don Bone, Esther Chiang, Eva Marie Koblin, John Zhang, Julien Dumesnil, Mathis Nu, and all the others!!! You keep us going!
If you want to join us, visit http://www.patreon.com/sprouts

Read the entire script here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SqhBnPM3m1dwfJJW_xo39H_mmCKERmbuAtXJcayZEVc/edit

source – If Video Not Display Click Here

Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development

Responses (47)

  1. Yes he should’ve stolen the medicine to help his sick wife. If he didn’t, then she would have died.

  2. The right answer is get over your pride and go beg on the street, or ask the doctor to borrow money, you can’t change his outlooks on life and he is not wrong for obeying rules(for many reasons) you just need to find a workaround everybody feels ok with. Press the fear button whenever you see it🤷‍♂️.

  3. I would still the medicine and sell it to half price to to my wife or a stranger and would accuse my wife for forcing me to steal it if I am arrested.

  4. Personally I think, if the life is justified the doctor should have let them decrease the price. But the main person in question should still get in trouble for stealing the medicine anyway.

  5. Prioritizing – sick someone, not affordable medicine. My wrong action for good purpose. I will do everything possible on that time just to save life.

  6. Wow! This explains a lot of social conflict and the disconnect. We argue about a subject matter. Yet, in reality we are speaking about completely different matters. The event maybe tangent and yet invisible to all parties.

  7. Personally, based on the moral disengagement argument about the distribution of blame, the husband can justify his action by saying that the drug seller deserves being robbed as he's selling 10x overpriced and also for the question what if the one who is in the deathbed is the stranger, he can also justify the reason for not helping the stranger by the diffusion of responsibility argument as that person's life is out of his responsibility. In a nutshell, I think at this stage, based on rule-based thinking which implies one's action should follow their duties and highest principle. If the principle of being husband is saving his partner's life, his action can be justified.

  8. In the first example, they left out so much information that justifying your ansett became extremly annoying. Like Tom looks like he is fucking 12 years old, and 9th graders beating him up would be like a horse Kicking a dog, there is nothing gained by doing it, no satisfaction or any reward. Then they drop the face he punched someone else who they dras to look even younger than him, like damn you WANT me to not stop them, huh? Also, are we an adult in the scenario? Are we also 9th graders? Or are we 12 (ish) like Tom? If you dont give us this info then Imma say that yes, I would, since I think I would stop two 9th graders beating up a fucking child

  9. 1) Yes
    2) Yes
    3) Maybe he wouldn't have down anything
    4) No because according to society the druggists behavior fits with what seems to bring the best outcomes in general to society but that's in no way absolving the druggists behavior as the fact that he chose to operate in a manner that itself is harmful thus on a minute scale reducing utility of this rule in society

  10. Is it criminal(immoral) to sell a drug at 10x the production cost? The love of this husband over his wife obviously transcends man-made laws, although he could possibly be fully aware of the consequences of such an action and willing to go all the way to jail if that means his wife lives. It's commendable, though punishable. The overall dilemma is a question of motive. If he didn't love his wife or if it was for a stranger, I guess the motive would be slightly different. From a moral POV, the heart of the matter is a matter of the heart, that in itself exists within another set of laws.

  11. In all cases, Heinz should not steal the medicine because stealing no matter the reason is wrong. he should look for another solution. stealing isn't the only option. It would not change the wrong action of stealing and it would not absolve Heinz of his obligations to try to find another solution if he did not love his wife. If the person dying was a stranger stealing the drug is still wrong even if his good reason is now gone. The pharmacist should not be arrested for murder as he did not directly cause nor did he have the intention to cause the death of Heinz's wife. Stealing is wrong and has its consequences whether he is caught or not. It's called Karma. what you do comes back to you. this is my personal opinion and you are welcome to agree or disagree.

  12. He was justified in stealing it and no i do not think he should go to jail, I think the man selling it for ten times the price should go to jail!!

  13. A utilitarian would simply say that the theft was ok because it was required. Using this consequential ideology is not only wrong but it does not encompass the entire situation (within proper moral grounds). At least those acclaiming for personal civic rights will understand the duty to maintain human life, And an incalculable moral responsibility from all parties involved. That said the civic right to property is also quite charming. However that’s valuing a life in some way which mathematicians find value, but is actually ultimately arbitrary. Such a statement means that no amount of goods is worth one life.

    If we are talking jury though… the pharmacist should get a fine and pay for any, and all of the thief’s property damage, and the thief needs some sort of mental assessment and to helped, however… all this man needed was litigation! So hopefully he’s given short community service without a record. Some time to think while being productive. Either way he gets the medicine.

  14. 1. He should not have stolen the drug.
    2. If really loves her, then he would accept that perhaps it's her time to go. But he should not taint her memory and the world by stealing (even if she would live).
    3. It doesn't matter who the person dying is.
    4. If the drugist is operating legally then he should not be arrested. Only if he was found to be doing something illegally.

  15. For Heinz's Dilemma, I was thinking: If I was the husband and the pharmacist told me the amount (which is x10 times more), I would head to the ''law/authority'' which is supposedly always there to help you and the people you 'love', I would tell them abt my story, my wife , get the doctors and the reports that prove her sickness and so on. Let's see what will they do (I still didn't steal). So, in theory, the pharmacist is to be ordered by the ''law/authority'' to lower the price cuz that's the only amount I can effort. Or the ''law'' should help me in a way by providing me with the rest of the money. And if all of these things didn't work, I would steal the medicine. U k anyway I will be jailed, but now my case will stand in the news, it will give a bad reputation to the law and eventually will make them reconsider the case and perhaps reconsider the rules they made. Yeah, which stage am I in

  16. Should of stolen saved his wife

    Why are you still married to her if you don’t love her if he still at least cares for her he should ask if she would be ok with home stealing it

    Random stranger no why would you there are people in different place in the world such as children who need help I don’t care about those people because I don’t know them

    No it’s not against the law he could sell for x100 or more and it would still be fine

  17. Everyone trying to be a noble or logical person in the common section at the end of day in real life you
    How u gonna deal with it when ur family

    Practice what you preach

  18. In my opinion it´s morally perfectly fine to break in and get the drug. No it doesn´t change anything if he loves his wife or not. Or like it doesn´t make any sense that he would do it if he didn´t love her in some way so wtf? Does he wan´t to go to jail that badly? It would obviously also be morally acceptable to save a strangers life. And i think every person responsable for a system where it´s even possible to sell drugs at prices this high and where you don´t have universal healthcare in general should be arrested for crimes against humanity. Because how can we even talk about moral when poor people are dying even though they wouldn´t have to if some people just pulled their heads out of their asses and realized that free healthcare is a good thing. Everything is political.

  19. I’m 26 , it took me 26 almost 27 years to understand this. As an adolescent child I knew helping others being bullied was right, as a teen I would question every rule my religious conservative family had. Disagree with most agreeing with very little. Now as an adult I understand we are all different and see life through different eyes and experiences , compassion and understanding is the core of justice and to understand your fellow human as a human is what will stop you from inflicting more pain on the world.

  20. 5:41 he must steal the drugs to save his wife if no other technique works.
    5:44 yes it changes , like if he didn't love his wife then he would never take the risk of stealing such expensive medicine.
    5:48 if he empathize people around him then he would definitely do the same for the stranger.
    5:52 yes the police should arrest the drugest in charge of muder of that women because if would have given the medicine to him for the sake of humanity rather than being selfish and greedy , than that would have saved her life.

  21. *I did not read all the comments, so if this was previously brought up, please excuse my comment.

    Did anyone consider the opinions of the person dying? What if death is not considered a negative and simply the next step of life? A part of life that we cannot see, but believe is present?

  22. 1. yes
    2. even if he didnt love her he should still prioritize saving her life
    3. if its a stranger, they're still a human who deserves tp live
    4. they inderectly murderd the wife by withholding the lifesaving drug

  23. To say that the only motivation for the principal in that situation is "compassion" is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure it would be a factor (everyone wants to the "good thing" according to their morality) but I'm sure everyone in his position will have many other factors into consideration (School reputation, Parent-Teacher Associations, etc.) and ignoring them completely is disingenuous.

  24. Even if he didn't love his wife or if it was a total stranger, his actions are justified because he was saving a life. As for the pharmacist, he should not get in trouble either. He is not legally obligated to give the man the needed drugs.

  25. This is the first time I've heard about these stages of moral development and the Heinz Dilemma. As I was watching the video I noticed that I was repulsed by the pharmacist's unwillingness to help the Heinz's dying wife. Heinz breaking into the pharmacy to steal the drug to save his wife was admirable. I think his actions were justified considering he was saving his wife's life. I also think the situation changes depending on whether the sick person was his wife or a stranger, though it shouldn't really. I think that a life is a life and how do we measure the value of a life compared to that of another? Here's a question, though: how would the situation change if the wife's condition was such that giving her the drug would save her life but only prolong her pain and suffering? Then, perhaps, the pharmacist wouldn't be such a bad guy in the story. Do I think pharmacists should be arrested for selling life-saving drugs at 10x the manufacturing price? Hell yes.

  26. this is why i want to kill psychologists they think morality exists when it doesnt. burn all the books of kolhberg. ALL. if i were the president i would fire or arrest all psychologists both professional and junior. from all majors and fields. whether its psychotherapy pscyhiatry or pscyhopath studies i want them ALL killed we dont need those institutions in our society to control us!!!!!!!!!!! fuck western society!!!!!!!!!

  27. 4) Police has to arrest the drugist if Heinz wife has died… But as government allowed the druggist to sell in that price..
    Government is the main reason for her death.
    We have to protest against government to reduce the price of medicine so that no one should die here after.

Comments are closed.