One of the best discussions we had was last week, when we were discussing Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. Each class period, one of the sections is taught by a pair of students. The students who taught Kohlberg did a great job really breaking down and teaching it clearly. And they used characters from Disney's Robin Hood to illustrate.
Kohlberg's theory in a nutshell outlines the stages people go through in developing moral reasoning. It echoes (and relies a lot on) Piaget's developmental stages, but explains how we grow in our understanding of right and wrong.
Stages 1 and 2 - Preconventional
In this stage, reasoning of right and wrong is based on maximizing personal benefit or avoiding punishment. This is the small child who takes a toy because he wants to play with it (stage 1) or decides not to hit his brother because he is afraid his mother will punish him (stage 2). As my own mother so succinctly phrased it as I was growing up, "Are you sorry you did it or sorry you got caught?" Her question was, basically, "Have you progressed past Kohlberg's preconventional level of moral reasoning yet?" My students illustrated this level with Prince John, the "phony king of England" motivated by the promise of personal monetary gain.
Stages 3 and 4 - Conventional
In these stages, people choose to follow what is right without relying on personal gain, but "right" is determ
ined by authority figures and social conventions and laws. There is a strong sense of right and wrong, but it is very letter-of-the-law. Those who transgress should be punished, and "goodness" is determined by how well someone follows the rules. My students who were teaching used the Sheriff of Nottingham as an example of someone who did what was "right," that is, followed the inhumane laws put forth by Prince John, but wasn't reasoning on the level of what was right for the people who were suffering because of the unjust taxes.Stages 5 and 6 - Postconventional
In these stages, right and wrong are based on social contract and universal human values. This is the realm of the Martin Luther Kings, the Gandhis and the Jesus Christs. Chr
ist taught people who were still reasoning in the conventional stages, offering them challenges such as "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." and "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The person who has developed postconventional moral reasoning understands and respects the rule of law but acknowledges a higher level of right and wrong that is sometimes not effectively addressed by the law. In my students' example, of course, this was illustrated with Robin Hood.There are criticisms of Kohlberg's theory of course; it's not perfect, and it definitely isn't an iron-clad pronouncement of human destiny, but it's helpful and so far has shown to be backed up pretty well, at least in its broadest implications, by research.
This led to an interesting conversation in class, however. A few of my students had taken another class in which the teacher said that people also criticise Kohlberg's theory because it relegates religious people to the conventional stages. I'm not quite sure, because it was second hand, whether this teacher himself thinks that religious belief falls within the conventional stages and thinks that the theory is incomplete because of that, or if he was reporting that other people believe that religion impedes moral development. I did a little searching and found a blog post arguing the latter. (I left a rebuttal on that post; if the author does not approve and post it, I'll post it for you here.) But one of my students was puzzled by these different reports and asked me flat out "So is this theory compatible with religion?" So I turned it back to them. "What do you think? What does your religion teach about morality and how does that work with Kohlberg's theory?"
My students then came up with examples of the Robin Hoods of our religion - individuals who had seen the necessary good based on universal principles that needs to trump the laws of man from time to time. Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, Nephi and Laban, Martin Luther King's peaceful protests. These were all actions taken in the name of religion that transcended dogma. And so our class came to a pretty general consensus that though religion can be very diverse and some people may rely on it as a set of unquestionable rules and regulations, there are many examples of times when we need to do what is right even though it appears on a certain level to be "wrong."
It's a delicate line that moral individuals have to tread. There is a delicate balance in being a lawful individual and yet being true to one's conscience. This is why the moral dilemmas that Kohlberg used in the experiments to form his theory are called "dilemmas." Because they're tricky, thick situations that are not answered easily with an appeal to rules. They happen in politics all the time. They happen in religion all the time. As a missionary, one of the lessons I taught people was about following the laws of the land. Latter-day Saints believe in being law abiding citizens, I taught. The Church university I attend publishes posters encouraging students not to download pirated music, it's that important of a concept. Cut and dried, right? Being moral means you follow the laws in spite of personal convenience. That's what's moral. But then I taught the concept to Jenny, from China. We were at the end of the lesson when she asked "I understand that it's important to follow the laws, but what if I went back to China where the law says I can only have one child? I already have one, so I would have to have an abortion if I became pregnant again. But we also believe that abortion is wrong. So do I follow the law or not?"
It was not an easy question. Moral dilemmas are not easy questions. Operating at the postconventional stages of moral reasoning is not an easy task that can be resolved with a quick appeal to the rules book. That's what makes being moral a challenge, and that's why different people will have different answers. That is totally in line with the types of decisions truly religious people have to make every day.
And then, just a few days later, a ruckus came up in the Salt Lake City newspapers. The LDS Church - one of those religious organizations long criticized for being simplistic and dogmatic and limiting the moral development of its followers - had publicly endorsed the Utah Compact, a plan to deal with illegal immigration that erred on the side of compassion for immigrants. The church released a statement stating that it discouraged illegal activity but that some sort of solution for those who have broken the law but have little recourse should be found. The Church itself made a moral decision based not on the harsh black and white requirements of society's laws and regulations but on the idea of a social contract and on larger, universal, concerns for what is right and what is humane. This was a religious organization promoting a Stage 6 solution.
Part of quelling the debate on religion and morality is by turning the issue back to the individual. Moral decisions are individual decisions. Religion does not impede moral development any more than being on the soccer team impedes moral development. Our social context is full of various levels of authority figures and teachings of every sort. When people outsource their own decision making responsibility to anyone or anything - whether it be a religion, an organization, or the consensus of popular culture and media - they are operating on a conventional level of moral reasoning. But when people from any religious or ideological background make a choice based on their own reasoning and faith, in spite of competing systems of belief around them, with the good of others in mind, they are making a moral choice from a higher level of moral development. And even if you disagree with that choice, you can't disagree with their freedom to make it.
Posts
