Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development

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.


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!

[Destiney..]

1- Avoiding Punishment
2- Seeking interest
3- Societal conformity
4- Maintaining the social order
5- Social contract
6- Ethics are paramount, and laws change to serve it.

[Leoshti]

Pov: your psychology teacher is making u watch this

[tanhan]

So Heinz casually forgot about his baked bean and ketchup company?

[toekneesee]

At 0:46, Fin's fear of punishment isn't from the teacher; Fin's fear of punishment is from getting his ass kicked by the ninth graders!

[whateveryousay]

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.

[ShawnRavenfire]

My answer to the question at the end: Breaking the law to save a life is justified, and almost any judge would dismiss the case for extenuating circumstances. But even if that were not the case, if the man could have saved his wife's life, or a complete stranger, it would still be a noble act for him to be willing to go to jail for stealing the drug, putting others' needs above his own. As for the pharmacist, I wouldn't send him to jail either. While I do believe that he has a MORAL obligation to help the man's wife (if not by giving the drug freely or at a reduced price, then at least agreeing to some kind of installment plan), he doesn't have any LEGAL obligation to help her. It's just like if I see someone drowning, I'm morally obligated to do save them, but not legally obligated. It's not the job of the police to force us to be good people, just to prevent us from directly infringing upon each others' freedoms. So for that reason, the pharmacist shouldn't be arrested, but should be held accountable in other ways, such as future customers taking their business elsewhere.

[derntootin]

sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reasons and apologise afterwards. help those that cannot help themselves.

[Rob]

I remember being bullied and not being able to fight back because I was taught violence is bad and didn't want to be punished or didn't want my mother to know me beating up someone :(

[GreatDayEveryone]

My kid's psychologist told me my daughter's sense of conscience was more fully developed than my ex's. This is super interesting.

[hannahjanesagandilan]

POV: you're watching this video because of ETHICS

[lornenoland]

The first scenario of the children fighting occurred when I was in 3rd grade. Two larger kids were viciously beating a smaller one, lying on the ground bloodied and screaming. I was horrified and wanted to stop the attack. The large crowd of other kids, however, were cheering and encouraging the attackers, like some kind of mob excited with blood lust.
Where would their behavior fall on this spectrum?
I felt helpless to do anything, and being a child could think of nothing, so I moved along home and told my mom. We got in the car and drove back by where it had happened, but it was all over by then.
I learned everything I ever needed to know about human nature on that day.

[strangurrkittens]

Hahaha studying for my child psychology exams and reading comments here is like 😂😂😂😂😂

[connorhansen]

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.

[krithikvakil]

I love content like this where we are presented with different social theories or experiments. Love Sprouts for doing this. I am thankful to you that I am finally discovering content that I love.

[melissagoddessa]

The husband is legally unjustified but morally justified. He committed the act of theft but rescued his dying wife. The pharmacist is the opposite; he is legally justified and morally unjustified. He cannot be forced to sell his product cheaper, but he could’ve set up a payment plan to make it affordable. I feel like the best solution is to have the government negotiate drug prices to make it affordable. No single individual can change anything, but collectively our voices for better healthcare will be heard. ⚕️My stage is 5: Social Contract. The laws should be enforced, but I understand laws can be poorly designed. Getting politically involved and advocating your rights is the best pathway forward.

[matthewleitch]

In response to the moral dilemma at the end, I would suggest trying another pharmacy.

UPDATE
Many people have pointed out that the dilemma said the drug was not available elsewhere. I missed that at first. However, that is because the dilemma is now completely implausible and unrealistic. Drug stores do not make unique pharmaceuticals. I thought of other bizarre aspects of the scenario too. It is not usable today. Perhaps more important, this experience underlines how far we usually go to avoid getting boxed into dilemmas like this.

[jezreelniobernaltenatad]

Given the situation I'd say that although his intentions were good, his means of getting the medicine is obviously wrong. But then when we weigh things out there are much more good that's happening. For stealing he gets to cure his wife and he might go to jail (its up to a competent judge) but I guess he wont even regret it knowing he saved her life. It's still a better choice if there is no other choice.

[toan--HoangVuGiaHuy]

This is one of the most informative and knowledgeable youtube channel that I have watched

[karenness]

Laws have been invented to enforce limits on behavior, primarily force and deceit, which can destroy relationships. The man faces a dilemma between two evils, letting his wife die and breaking a law that prohibits a behavior that, if it became generalized, could destroy society. Of course, he isn't thinking about that, not with his wife dying.

It is we, as citizens, who must think about that. How far are we willing to allow the law to be flouted? If society collapsed, many people would suffer from the effects of looting, violence, and a lack of production of those things we need to live better lives. The only place that we are all forced to think seriously about these issues is a jury. But, when we let busy judges do all the work, we, as a population, do not develop the moral sense an advanced society needs in order to function ethically. Then, judges, who don't necessarily have a higher moral sense than the ordinary citizen, can start making decisions that society in general does not agree with, creating rifts between the law and a large sector of the general population.

It's hard for us as individuals to judge at what moral level we are at. Our self interest and fears make our moral sense shift, depending on different circumstances, especially emotional ones. That's why an impartial jury is so important to keeping the use of public power ethical.

[johnoleary]

It's a rule-of-law test. The scenario (at the end of the video, btw) provides a set moral questions that suggest (imply, whatever) that a system of rules cannot always provide a moral (principled, whatever) outcome to every interpersonal conflict in a society, which is true (btw). The answer you give to these questions is going to reflect your personal values.

Obviously, you (or, any given person) want to respect the law. However, if the rules of law, which is simple system of rules trying to resolve a complex set of circumstances that occur in your (or, any given) society, fail to provide a moral or principled outcome in a given scenario, the correct thing to do is reevaluate the law, or the application of the law, and make corrections or realignments so that the desired outcome occurs. Of course, not everyone will have the same desired outcome. So, if a person ranks their principals so that the preservation of life supersedes the protection of property (perhaps in every situation, but not necessarily), they'll find a way to justify taking the drug away from the pharmacist (by whatever means) and saving Mrs. Heinz (who should have a enough money to buy the drug in the first place because they sure seem to sell a lot of ketchup, but whatever).

Regardless of how you answer these questions, if the answers you give result in the preservation of life over property, then you obviously value life over property (or the concept of personal property). Which, I suppose, is the point of the questions. You can make more of a drug, and you can resolve a personal property dispute after the fact with some sort of just outcome, but you cannot restore a life lost to decision based on a set of rules that fail to resolve a complex scenario unforeseen by the author(s) of the rules. If you don't have confidence in the answers you give these questions (which I expect is pretty common), it's probably because you are having a hard time resolving the conflict between your principals; respect for an individual's choice of how they conduct their business and deal with their property (the pharmacist), or the preservation of one person's life over the liberty of another's. Some would find this an easy choice, and some would not. Also, the amount of time you have to think about your answers and/or your values may matter.

So, if you read this far, maybe you want my answer. I have to assume that Mrs. Heinz (or whoever) has a fixed amount of time to live and that immediate action is the only way to save her (or them: I think they made that clear in the video, but a time constraint is an important condition that has to be true, so I want to state my assumption here). Also, I'm assuming the pharmacist actually made the drug and is not just selling someone else's product. This matters to the question of the pharmacist's actions and responsibilities. The answer (based on my values) is to steal the drug, save the wife (or even a stranger), turn myself (Mr. Heinz) in to the authorities, and deal the consequences, which include paying for the drug after the fact.

In case you're thinking it, yes, I'm aware that someone, somewhere, is probably dying of a treatable medical condition right now. The context of this story is what I'm talking about here, so, no, I'm not going to go hunt for a situation so I can rob a pharmacist and save someone's life. I'm just responding to the situation given, and, yes, I'm going to have a different answer for a different situation. Whatever choice I make in any given situation is personal and does not act as a baseline for my opinion of what others choose to do (the pharmacist, for instance). That said, it's absurd (and immoral) to withhold a replicable drug in a situation where a life can be saved and compensation can be resolved later. But, as we all know, this does happen. If I were the pharmacist, I would probably have a different business model that wouldn't result in the situation given. I'd probably not be in business for very long either. However, I do not believe the pharmacist in the above scenario is a murderer for withholding a drug that he can make but demands compensation for.

Regardless of how you change the scenario, I'm going to put the value of life over the certain liberties of an individual because that's how I rank my values. Different scenarios will yield different variations on the same theme or outcome, but my values will always place the the right of an individual in immediate peril to live or survive over the right of another individual to retain or acquire wealth at the expense of another. So, it doesn't matter how you change the scenario, how I change my answer will be based on these values.

tl;dr: of course I'd steal the drug, it wouldn't matter if I loved my wife, It wouldn't matter if it was a stranger, and I don't think the pharmacist should be charged with murder.