Kohalberg's theory of Moral development

Moral Development

Kohalberg's theory of Moral development

Definition for moral development:

Moral development is the process of transfiguring cognitive structures, dependent on cognitive development and experiencing social environment. It is NOT the imprinting of rules and virtues, as was previously thought.(Duska & Whelan, 1975)                    

Morals

The psychological encyclopedia (Egidius 2001, as cited in Mollar, 2009) defines morals as:

1. The valid morals which are stated in codes of practices and which humans ought to know and follow.

2. The system of moral principles and rules an individual, a group or a population actually follows.

3. Individual perception of what is allowed and not allowed, what you are obligated to do and obligated not to do, what is good and evil, right and wrong

Goleman (1995) gives opinion that the substratum of character is self discipline. If a person can defeat his own self for the interest of other people and can feel others emotions, he is empathically moved and can be a moral being. To curb one’s own desires and prefer others to help them is altruism. This altruism forms a reformed society.

Richard, (1997) also describes the same fact that if people consider their own nature they cannot harm others.

How does child develop a system of morals?

TherAre Three Major Opinions In Regard To Above Question.

Child Born Neutral

Child born Evil

Child born good

Child born Evil:

Original sin, the sin that Adam committed, as a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. (Catholic Encyclopedia., 2009) . Freud explains it as Homo Homini Lupus (man is a wolf to man).Freud justification for such a drastic approach type conclusion, can by described as basically atrocities of the century Freud lived in. In example the invasion of the Huns, as a brutal entity designed to portray Man's innately evil nature. And the atrocities of the First World War. Freud’s view of Man is an evil one. And that all Men are innately evil and aggression lies within the human as a part of his nature. Our inclination to aggression is apparent in one's relation with his neighbor and is apparent in everyday casual behavior. Freud also states that as a civilized society we use violence only on criminals and that the law is not able to prosecute the more careful, and smaller aggression of man which can sometimes be just as evil (Literature essays, 2009)

Child born good :

Rousseau believed that man was born innately good but that it was society that corrupted man. He argued that man was made unhappy by experiences that he had in society because society was distorted, corrupt, and false. In Rousseau’s The Social Contract, which he wrote in 1762, Rousseau explains this concept of man being naturally good but corrupted by society. The social contract is an accord which all men enter into by common agreement. In this book the idea is presented that the state would give protection to the members of this contract and in return the state gets the pleasure and opportunity to govern the members. Freedom is easily preserved in this sort of contract because when entering the contract all the members give up as well as gain the same rights as each other. Rousseau writes that: “Since each gives himself up entirely, the condition is equal for all.” (2) In The Social Contract Rousseau also states that for society to run well there is need for a Legislator. This Legislator writes the constitution of the state but he himself does not enforce it. The people enforce it themselves because they are able to see the good in it even they may not be able to recognize that good without there being a constitution of the state.(Nosotro,2003)

Child born neutral

Skinner claimed that children come into the world with a tabula rasa, a blank slate, bearing no pre-conceived notions about the world or about language, and these children are then shaped by their environment, slowly conditioned through various schedules of reinforcement. Skinner also claimed that learning in general could be programmed. You can teach anything by a carefully designed program of step-by-step reinforcement. Skinner characterized the learner as being similar to a battery, in that it continually emits behavior, while the environment selects certain behaviors based upon their consequences. (Qureshi,2001)

Islamic Perspective:

Maududi (as cited in Khanam , 2008) has discussed and advocated this commonality of universal  values and ethics in his book, ‘The ethical viewpoint of Islam,’ translated by  Khursheed Ahmed. The following extract from his book is important to be included in this review to understand the nature of universal values as:

“Moral sense is inborn in man and through the ages it has served as the common man's standard of moral behavior, approving certain qualities and disapproving others. While this instinctive faculty may vary from person to person, human conscience has given a more or less uniform verdict in favor of certain moral qualities as being good and  declared certain others as bad”  

As it is explained that there are some universal values which are considered important without the distinction of cast and creed. Despite individual differences people, either they are good or bad, instinctively convinced of these virtues.

Maududi (as cited in Khanam , 2008) has advocated that “moral virtues, justice, courage, bravery and truthfulness have always elicited praise. History does not record any period worth the name in which falsehood, injustice, dishonesty, and breach of trust may have been upheld. Fellow-feeling, compassion, fidelity, and magnanimity have always been valued while selfishness, cruelty, miserliness and bigotry have never received the approval of the human society; men have always appreciated perseverance, determination and courage and have never approved of impatience, fickle-mindedness, cowardice and imbecility”

Maududi ( as cited in khanam , 2008) has further analyzed that “dignity, restraint, politeness, and amiability have throughout the ages been counted among virtues, whereas snobbery, misbehavior and rudeness have never found recognition as good moral qualities.” Those who are responsible, prosocial, helpful, truthful, active, honest, bold and courageous are appreciated in every community and society while, cheaters, criminals, cruel, disloyal, lazy and liars are regarded disgusting and hateful. Then why there are differences in human actions and thoughts? How these discriminations can be removed

Maududi (as cited in khanam , 2008) is of the opinion that “only that society has been looked upon as worthy or honour and respect which possesses the virtues of organization, discipline, mutual affection and fellow feeling and has established a social order based on justice, freedom and equality of men. Inversely, disorganization, no-discipline, anarchy, disunity, injustice and social imbalance have always been considered as manifestations of disaster and disintegration in a society. Robbery, murder, burglary, betrayal, fraud and theft have always been predestined. Slandering, scandal mongering and blackmailing has never been considered as useful social activities.”

Introduction to Lawrence Kohlberg and History of his theory.

Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist who provided valuable insight into the moral development of individuals. Lawrence Kohlberg was born 1927 in a small suburb of New York City, Bronxville.  Only a toddler when the stock market crash occurred, he was a depression era baby; but fortunate since he was born into a family with wealth.  He was raised in a Jewish household and went to private schooling through high school, that occurred during WWII.  He appears to have had some delinquent tendencies himself, as a Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) Magazine article states “he had been known far more for his sense of mischief and forays to nearby girls' schools than for his interest in academic theories (Walsh, 2000, as cited in Matthews ).

            Not old enough to serve in the armed forces for the war, Kohlberg first went to Europe and interviewed Holocaust survivors.  He joined the merchant marines, serving as a second engineer on a freighter. Although he was devoted to the Zionist cause - the freighter he served on smuggled European Jews into Palestine passed Great Britain’s blockade during the late 1940’s.  At the time this was dangerous work and what some would consider - international crime, but to others he was a patriot and hero.  He was captured and imprisoned in a British prison camp and later lived as a refugee on a kibbutz.  Due to these early experiences,

“he was troubled with the question; “When is it permissible to be involved with violent means for supposedly just ends?”  He spent his life searching for a universal morality that is neither contextually nor culturally relative.  He believed moral psychology was guided by moral philosophy, according to   (2000, as cited in Matthews).”

            After his time abroad, Kohlberg returned to college in 1948, attending the University of Chicago.  He did so well in his entrance examination he was exempted from a number of courses and completed his baccalaureate degree in one year, going on to complete his graduate studies.  He first studied philosophy and was intrigued with the writings of Plato, John Dewey, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill.  When he started his concentration study in psychology, he studied towards becoming a clinical psychologist, but after entering the academic world, he devoted his time to research, especially that of children. (Matthews)

He was an avid student of Jean Piaget and enthralled with his works.  “Piaget's theories of moral development in children and adolescents fascinated him; Kohlberg eventually found himself interviewing children and adolescents on moral issues .  This research occurred during the 1950’s, a time of great affluence, with scientific advancements and development including psychological and sociological studies in America.  Kohlberg published his doctorial thesis in 1958, when he first introduced his six stages of moral development, “Kohlberg's doctoral dissertation, made him psychology's newest star (Walsh, 2000, as cited in Matthews).

After WWII the study of psychology grew considerably.  The 1950’s saw the start of client-centered approaches based on Carl Rogers’ stimulus response theories .Conditioning and learning were replaced by more cognitive conceptions.  The controlled study, whether in a laboratory or in an applied setting, conducted then is still prevalent today (Gilgen, 1987, p. 587, as cited in Matthews).

“Small pools of talented individuals due to low birth rate of the depression era generation were enabled by the US government to complete education and later apply for research grants.  Major recipients of research funding for psychology were given to Harvard.  Although influence by the government seemed to be negative due to intrusion (Gilgen, as cited in Mattews).”

            Kohlberg’s tenure at Harvard began during the turbulent 60’s with the Vietnam War having center attention of the political and media arenas.  The crime rate at the time was high.  Much could be attributed to demonstrations against the war, the recession that eventually hit during Nixon era, and other continued civil unrest.  It was also a time when new ideas were more readily accepted, so Kohlberg started to gain some influence since his theory went against the status quo.  Cultural disruptions of the late 1960 and early 1970s, the political dispositions of the post-Vietnam and post-Watergate era, and the economic disruptions of recession and never ending inflation are produced a spiritual malaise (Matthews)

“Supporters endorsed Kohlberg’s position because it confirmed a common American ideal that history reflected progress towards moral improvement within the individual and the state.  Also because of the optimistic mood during the Kennedy era it seemed that all kinds of social reform were possible, and the ideals of the Constitution might at last be realized.  The Age of Aquarius was dawning.  Even the subsequent disillusionments – the moral crisis of My Lai and Watergate, the slow realization that the revolution was not at hand and the political inertia consequent upon economic recession and conservative backlash – did not erode the optimism because it was obvious that the protestors and objectors were demonstrating the kind of thinking and the level of reasoning, consistent with the model (Modgil, 1986, as cited in Matthews).”

These social concerns for moral issues paralleled Kohlberg’s publications on moral development.  This established his importance and prominence in the psychology community. Kohlberg fine tuned his doctorial work and went on to write and publish additional essays and books on the stages of moral development during the 1970’s and 1980’s, a time when many were seeking psychological wellbeing through regular visits to psychiatrists with some getting “hooked on mother’s little helper” (the Rolling Stones reference to valium).  His theory of justice dominated research on the psychology of morality during this time.  The nation’s moral dilemma was further complicated by a somewhat popular president who lost the public’s confidence and resigned.   There was a political transition period before the 1980’s to the Regan era when Kohlberg’s books were published.  Prior to those publications, Kohlberg’s work was widely known and accepted.  As with any theorist, his works did meet with criticism. (Matthews)

            During a trip to Central America in 1973, Kohlberg caught an unknown tropical related disease.  This caused subsequent years of ill health and depression.  He mysteriously disappeared in 1987 and his body was later recovered.  There are those who believe that Kohlberg took his own life.  Although Kohlberg is gone, he is still cited and referred to by psychologists in a variety of disciplines to include those involved in the study and treatment of aberrant and deviant behavior.  We shall look at how his works can have implications for those studying the causes of criminal behavior. (Matthews)

            Before discussing Kohlberg, one needs to understand the two accepted psychological theories of the time.  The first deals with the psychoanalytical behavior approach that contends:

“becoming moral is the internalization of the cultural norms and values in the superego through a process of parental identification, which according to Freud culminates the resolution of the oedipal conflict.  They look to correlations in early childhood parenting and behavior, and between the arousal of guilt and behavior.  This paradigm presents the essence of moral functioning as following one’s conscience in order to avoid guilt (Ramachandran, 1994, as cited in Matthews)”

            The second, social behavior learning,  theorists equate morality to societal norms and more broadly with other-oriented or altruistic actions.  Like the psychoanalytical, they maintain that individuals become moral through the internalization of those societal norms.  Instead of analyzing the processes of parental identification, social learning theorists attempt to demonstrate that these norms are acquired through rewards and punishments.  Children are first motivated to satisfy their own needs and desires.  They are then shaped or socialized by environmental mechanism’s to find satisfaction in socially approved and other-oriented actions.  The test of morality is whether the child will adhere to a social norm or perform an altruistic action without the expectation of reward or punishment or at some personal cost (Ramachandran, 1994, Mtthews).

Cognitive developmentalists, like Kohlberg,

“rejected the assumption that morality can be equated with culturally relative standards.  They believe a philosophic stance of morality is a process of adjudicating conflicting claims on the basis of universally recognized principles of justice and benevolence.  Cognitive moral development occurs through stages where individuals reason about moral problems in progressively more adequate ways.  In contrast to the other two philosophies, who view the child as being passively formed by the environmental forces, cognitive developmentalists picture the child (later the adolescent and then adult) as developing a personal ‘moral philosophy’ through interacting with the environment.  Cognitive development provides a penetrating analysis of the way in which individuals’ reason about moral problems.  Moral reasoning is the most important part of moral functioning (Ramachandran, as cited in Matthews).”

Kohlberg provided the philosophical foundation for the assertion of the universality of the principle of justice.  His cognitive development approach to moral reasoning challenged both behavioral and psychoanalytic theories.  He argued that personality is developed in the context of social interactions (Rawls, 1994 p. 453).

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development

Kohlberg observed that growing children advance through definite stages of moral development in a manner similar to their progression through Piaget's well-known stages of cognitive development. His observations and testing of children and adults, led him to theorize that human beings progress consecutively from onstage to the next in an invariant sequence, not skipping any stage or going back to any previous stage. These are stages of thought processing, implying qualitatively different modes of thinking and of problem solving at each stage. Kohlberg had carried out his studies on only male subjects. (Cary, 1986) .

The theory presents six stages of moral reasoning:

I. Preconventional Level

At this level the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right and wrong, but interprets these labels in terms of either the physical or the hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or in terms of the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels. The level is divided into two Stages:

Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are valued in their own right, not in terms of respect for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter being Stage 4). (Kohalberg,1971)

Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation. Right action consists of that which instrumentally satisfies one’s own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms like those of the market place.Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical or pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours,” not of loyalty, gratitude, or justice. (Kohalberg,1971)

II. Conventional Level

At this level, maintaining the expectations of the individual’s family, group, or nation is perceived as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order and of identifying with the persons or group involved in it. At this level, there are two stages:

Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance of “good boy–nice girl” orientation. Good behavior is that which pleases or helps and is approved by others. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or natural behavior. Behavior is frequently judged by intention. “He means well” becomes important for the first time. One earns approval by being nice. (Kohalberg,1971)

Stage 4: The law and order orientation. This is orientation toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior consists of doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake. (Kohalberg, 1971)

III. Post-Conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level

At this level, there is a clear effort to define moral values and principles which have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups or persons holding these principles and apart from the individual’s own identification with these groups. This level has two stages:

Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation, generally with utilitarian overtones. Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and in terms of standards which have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching consensus. Aside from what is constitutionally and democratically agreed upon, the right is a matter of personal values and opinion. The result is an emphasis upon the legal point of view, but with an emphasis upon the possibility of changing law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than rigidly maintaining it in terms of Stage 4 law and order). Outside the legal realm, free agreement and contract are the binding elements of obligation. This is the official morality of the American government and Constitution. (Kohalberg, 1971)

Stage 6: The universal ethical principle orientation. Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self chosen ethical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative) and are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and of respect for dignity of human beings as individual persons. (Kohalberg, 1971)

The six stages represent a pattern of thinking which integrates each person’s experience and perspective on specific moral issue

Further Explanation of theory:

1-Stage Development is invariant

2-In stage development, subject cannot comprehend moral reasoning at a stage more than one stage beyond their own:

3-In stage development individuals are cognitively attracted to reasoning one level above their own present predominant level

6.Kohalber believed that only 25% of persons ever grow to level six, the majority remaining at level four

Current Applicability of Kohlberg’s Theory :

            Since Kohlberg’s death in 1987, there are those who believe that the theory and its’ focus died with him; however, examples indicate this is not the case.  Some researchers have taken his works and expanded it.  Other professionals in areas of law, psychology, sociology, and education have periodically cited Kohlberg.  His work has primarily been used in education; although his theory is still based in the fundamentals of philosophical justice as it relates to moral behavior.  There are claims that his work has much to offer the sociology community especially since the principles of his theory are found in a number of accepted sociological theories that explain criminal behavior.  It appears Kohlberg’s theory, within the criminal justice community, has found a place in describing and explaining ethical matters relating to behavior and social issues instead of the causes of crime.  Stephenson (1992,) cites Kohlberg as a pioneer in the identification of how criminal behavior may occur.  Kohlberg has looked more abstractly (then Piaget) at the question of how we change the way in which we justify our actions as we grow older (Stephenson, 1992, ).  The following paragraphs describe some of the comments from individuals who saw the importance of Kohlberg’s theory.  They have either continued his work, found use of it to describe legal principles (capital punishment), development of legal stages and use in training police officers on ethics and morals.

            There have been several researchers who continued with Kohlberg’s works; however, they have not received the same notoriety.

“Jurgen Habermas explains the approaches to law; is an exception and one of the more significant moral development theorists.  He stated the theory of social evolution uses the fundamental concepts and is built on Piaget and Kohlberg’s extending to a seventh step the realm of universal linguistic ethics of discourse (Podgoreki, 1981, as cited in Matthews).”

By accepting the seventh stage, it appears Kohlberg opened the universal link and it attempted to close some of the communication issues with his theory.

            Kohlberg’s theory has enormous potential which lies within the moral reasoning story, even with its limitations.  Kohlberg himself did not emphasize the social perspective aspect in order to bring it the attention which it deserves (Modgil, 1986).  There is more to Mary Marks Wilcox’s observation then just criticism.  She notes that his works, “regardless of the shortcomings, he has much to offer especially from a sociological perspective.

            From another aspect in the criminal justice community, in 1984, Justice Brennan, referred to Kohlberg’s stage development in his discussion on the death penalty.

“The growth of factual knowledge, in and of itself, will not necessarily bring about a change in public opinion; the impact that new facts will have upon the evolution of attitudes toward capital punishment is contingent upon the moral principals which are invoked by persons making judgments on the basis of those facts” (Loh, as cited in Matthews).”

            Another writer of Kohlberg compared his works with the development of law.  Roger Cotterrell, “Kohlberg’s stages of moral development have been linked with June Tapp’s data on legal attributes to suggest a sequence of levels and stages in orientation of the individual to law.  Socialization into the legal order is seen as dependent on wider processes of cognitive and moral development (Cotterrell, as cited in Matthews )”.

            The Southeast Regional Community Policing Institute at St. Petersburg College has one course that teaches law enforcement officers about ethics.  The basic model used is Kohlberg’s stage theory in moral development.  Using Kohlberg’s (and Gilligan’s) theory, participating law enforcement personnel learn how both officers’ and offenders’ moral development impacts the decisions they make.  The instructor points out that as the students read the explanations of Kohlberg’s six stages; they will probably be able to identify officers and criminals who are at a particular stage.  Additionally, Kohlberg’s theory is still taught to college students studying psychology, with an emphasis on education and development, not criminology.  That is not to claim it does not have significance or relevancy for the modern day criminologist.  Unfortunately, Kohlberg’s theory remains on the periphery of criminology and not in the mainstream.  Presently, this appears to be the only law enforcement class that uses his theory.

           

            The following shows the various database searches I conducted regarding Kohlberg.  While in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), I varied the dates in the search parameters to determine the latest Kohlberg citations.  Other searches netted various results and in some cases, none at all.  When I did not find a hit by name, I then varied the search to the topics of moral or cognitive development and stage theory.  When I received hits for the topics, I could not specifically identify that they belonged to, or were associated with Kohlberg.

            Amazon.com search showed 2053 books relating to Lawrence Kohlberg.

            American Psychological Association website listed a call for papers that included in the general category – cognitive development, moral development, and stage theory. 

            American Criminal Justice Society listed in its Criminology Abstracts general category – developmental theory and cognitive development.

            Criminal Justice Abstracts showed one hit that was in French.

            MSN Search engine found 2,853 hits dealing with Lawrence Kohlberg and moral development.

            PsychArticles provided 13 hits in its database with Kohlberg and moral development.

            SSCI with the date parameters of 1958-2004 showed 1,603; 1994-2004 there were 547 hits; and from 2001-2004 there were 234 hits.  Most of these articles dealt with cognitive development, Developmental Models of Moral Thinking, and one to the justice community.

            Sociological Abstracts showed 13 hits with Kohlberg.

            Kohlberg’s focus on justice and moral decision making made morality a central concern of psychology and furthered the popularity of cognitive developmental theory.  His theory of justice dominated research on the psychology of morality in the 1970’s and 1980s and his ideas have been applied in prisons, schools, Israeli kibbutzim, and hospitals and clinics.  His work continues to influence inquiry into moral thought and behavior.  Hundreds of studies have been conducted using his interview format, and thousands of related studies of moral development have used the paper and pencil adaptation of Kohlberg’s interview.

            Kohlberg has provided us a valuable tool to use for analysis in how individuals behave ethically and how they develop morally.  Most of the theories we studied discuss the presence and reasons for deviant behavior.  Conversely, Kohlberg explains how ethical behavior occurs and develops within individuals.  Although he has been most criticized for the testing, analysis of his studies and the subsequent outcomes, his theory is valid in providing answers as to why individuals act the way they do.  He did not take his theory towards an analysis of crime, but it is possible to use his theory in the study of moral or ethical behavior specifically as it relates to crime. (Matthews)

According to research a research, the implementation of Kohlberg’s principles in classroom Instruction and disciplinary procedures and district and community programs proved to be a positive experience for all involved.  The students seemed to enjoy the lessons and having a voice in disciplinary procedures of the classroom.  After teaching for ten years, the teacher experienced less discipline problems and more cooperation from the students than in previous years.

 (DIT) created in 1979 by James, originally as a pencil-and-paper alternative to the Moral Judgment Interview. Heavily influenced by the six-stage model, it made efforts to improve the validity criteria by using a Quantitative test, the likert scale, to rate moral dilemmas similar to Kohlberg's. It also used a large body of Kohlbergian theory such as the idea of "post-conventional thinking". In 1999 the DIT was revised as the DIT-2; the test continues to be used in many areas where moral testing is required, such as divinity, politics, and medicine.

The Moral Judgment Test (MJT) has been constructed to assess subjects’ moral judgment competence as it has been defined by Lawrence  Kohlberg: (the capacity to make decisions and judgments which are moral (i.e., based on internal principles) and to act in accordance with such judgments” (Lind,1999)

Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development:

Carol Gilligan claims that Kohlberg was biased in his research, as he only surveyed males, and did not females. This would corrupt results because males and females are instilled different beliefs and values according to their sex. For example, males are taught to be independent and abstract, while females are taught to be nurturing, caring and affectionate. (Cromag)

Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. (Cherry)

Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept as justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning.(Cherry)

Does Kohlberg's theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not account for. (Cherry)

Personal criticism:

According to my point of view the judgment of morality only through the dilemmas are not enough because there are so many other aspects of life in which people behave differently and emotions and mood also play a big role while judging any situation

Secondly culture and religion also play a greater role in the moral development of a person, even the families who are more religious have different moral reasoning and behaviors comparatively those who are less religious. So according to my point of view religion plays a big role in moral development.

Kohalberg explains some aspects of moral development but according to me, moral development is highly significant for soul satisfaction in every part of life.

Conclusion:

I want to conclude this project with my own experience that, it is not necessary that through moral development you can make your dreams true but it is true that as moral being you can get satisfaction of your soul