Measuring Morality

As a graduate student in 1958 Lawrence Kohlberg built upon the work of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and began developing a theory of moral development. Kohlberg continued to work on this theory throughout his life. He proposed that as they age people move through three levels of moral reasoning, each with two stages. The levels are pre-conventional (ages 3-7), conventional (ages 8-13), and post conventional (adulthood). The pre-conventional stage is marked by decision-making based on reward and punishment, and obtaining or avoiding it. The conventional stage is characterized by a focus on external ethics such as “being good” in the eyes of others which is limited to a current context or situation. In the post-conventional stage people shift into being guided by internal or personal ethics which are more universal. Kohlberg believed that we move through these levels and stages as we mature and gain experience.

The thing is, too many of us don’t. Exactly like how many of us don’t learn civics or financial literacy because we are not taught about them.

I always thought it odd that we generally don’t teach children about this in any systematic fashion. We leave it up to parents and trial and error. Some faith communities do a lot of work in this area but I don’t know how many infuse it with secular theory, no matter how sound the science may be. The second link above contains exercises for such purposes.

Relying on trial and error means that some of us may not advance through the stages. Age alone does not guarantee moral maturation. And as Thomas Paine famously wrote, “Virtue is not hereditary.” This is a huge problem during a time in which masses are deceived and manipulated by propaganda denoted by appeals to what appears to be morality, such as “right and wrong” or “law and order” (a conventional or adolescent stage). Because this level of reasoning is typically grounded in tradition, culture, or informal codes of conduct, the “error” we make is that not every person or situation will fit or respond to this level of reasoning. For example, rules formed in, say, Asia or northern Europe may not be very applicable for someone living in Africa or the Caribbean. Or vice versa.

Or someone with a history of trauma cannot benefit from expectations from those who don’t understand it. Or someone with a preference for homogeneity in a community will not even perceive accurately or learn about those who have a different set of customs and gifts. These will be seen as threats to social “order” and what is right and wrong, if one remains in a conventional stage and does not mature any further. Bad Bunny will be seen as just bad and not a creative “one of us” as he should be. Universality in moral reasoning can be suitable for anyone, anywhere, at any time. It can be identified by its degree of humanity, dignity, and respect.

Demonizing others is a trick played to wage war by those who capitalize on moral stagnation in our development. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book and psychopathic leaders have used it throughout all of human history. Because we are not taught moral reasoning in any systematic fashion we are vulnerable to a moral failure to thrive and to moral victimization.

It is often said that every choice matters. As we move through the day we are faced with multiple choices. Instead of doing this passively or coasting in neutral, each choice is an opportunity to map it on the stages of moral reasoning and move to a better, more sophisticated and nuanced level. Especially those choices that affect others around us and those not in the room. It really isn’t rocket science, but the habit does take practice.

We can all keep trying to be better…it’s not about perfection. Those who have never been perplexed by a thorny moral or ethical issue are not paying attention. Scan the big world, and your immediate world, and deliberately look for them, then consider how various responses of yours would be placed among the levels of reasoning.

Let’s all move up the ladder.

Share