Morality refers to the ability to distinguish between the good and the evil in the society; It affects the social cohesion in society. Kohlberg’s theory (Kohlberg, 1971) describes the various stages of moral development in children. There are three levels namely; pre-conventional, conventional and the post-conventional(Kohlberg, 1971) in the theory. Hence, each level of moral development of children is associated with two stages. A study was undertaken to highlight the various stages of moral development amongst respondents between the ages of ten and twenty. This paper highlights the results of the research and the implication in moral development. Thus, the article has a detailed analysis based on the real-life situation since the data was collecting from people within the age bracket of ten to twenty to ensure the practicality of the study.

The study shows that a disparity exists between how different individuals think and what they view as good or evil. However, each has a reason as to why he/she feels in a particular manner regarding the morality aspect of life (Walker, 1982). For instance, some people thought that it was right for Heinz to break into the man’s laboratory to save the life of his wife. On the contrary, others felt that the druggist reserved the right to decide on whether to offer the medicine to Heinz or not. The disparity witnessed between these two groups of people would be tough to merge based on the fact that each had its consequences (Walker, 1982). The first group felt that there was a need to do everything without considering the welfare of the druggist. Then, the counterparts thought that the life of the sick woman was not as important as respecting the rights of the druggist who had struggled to come up with the medicine. Hence, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (Kohlberg, 1971) played a crucial role to highlight the stages for moral development among the respondents.

Additionally, the respondents were engaged in giving their views on the life of a stranger as well as that of a pet. Most respondents felt that there was no need to risk life for the sake of just a mere stranger. However, others felt that human life was significant regardless of whether the person was known to you before or was just a stranger (Walker, 1982). Moreover, some felt that a pet played a vital role in the life of an individual thus highlighting their view that Heinz had a reason to break into the laboratory to get the drug to save the sick pet. Some other group felt that Heinz ought to consider the welfare of the druggist and forego stealing for the sake of just a pet that was not as important as a human being. This disparity further emphasizes the need to apply the Kohlberg’s theory (Kohlberg, 1971) to determine the stages of moral development amongst the respondents.

Based on the data collected and the understanding of morality as studied in class, human life was more valuable than material property(Walker, 1982). For instance, the druggist ought to be arrested if the woman ends up dying due to lack of money yet he could cure her. Heinz had a reason to break into the man’s laboratory to steal the drug since he had tried convincing the druggist who failed to consider the value of human life. Nonetheless, based on societal cohesion, Heinz would have a reason to break into the laboratory to save the life of a stranger. Human life is valuable regardless of whether the person was known to him before or was just a stranger(Walker, 1982). Thus, the study was essential to help establish an understanding of morality among different people.

In conclusion, the study was successful since it created a deeper understanding of the class work studied earlier. It enabled to visualize on the reality of the classification of moral development in different stages based on progress. The different stages were found to apply to various individuals based on their understanding of morality (Walker, 1982). Therefore, the study was valuable to the students as they appreciated the coursework studied in class.

References

Kohlberg, L. (1971). 1. Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education. Moral Education. doi:10.3138/9781442656758-004

Walker, L. J. (1982). The Sequentiality of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Child Development, 53(5), 1330. doi:10.2307/1129023

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?