Following on from John Evans’ excellent article on emotions and ethics in the January edition of The Script, I want to pick up the theme of how human beings learn about ethics and morals. First, I will look at Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, and then how, as trainers and supervisors, we can help others grapple with ethical dilemmas.

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) was an American psychologist and professor at Harvard University who took Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and applied them to moral development. Humans are seen to go through specific stages, ideally leading to maturity. Kohlberg believed that moral reasoning was the basis for ethical behavior and that humans go through six sequential stages to reach maturity. Not everyone will reach maturity.

Expanding on Piaget’s work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice. It focuses on how individuals’ rationale for moral decisions matures over time and emphasizes justice, fairness, and social contracts. He identified three stages of moral development, each with two sub-stages (see Stages of Moral Development).

Pre-conventional Level

• Stage 1: Obedience and punishment. The person asks: Will I be punished?
• Stage 2: Individualism. The person asks: What’s in it for me?

Conventional Level

• Stage 3: Being a "good boy" or "good girl." The person asks: What will others think of me?
• Stage 4: Law and order/rules. The person asks: What does the law say? What is the rule?

Post-conventional Level

• Stage 5: The social contract. The person asks: How can everyone's needs be met?
• Stage 6: Principles and conscience. The person asks: Does this fit with or go against universal principles?

Kohlberg used male subjects and would present them with ethical dilemmas. One famous example was the case of Heinz, whose wife was ill and would die without a particular medicine. However, Heinz was poor, and although a local pharmacist had the required medicine, Heinz could not afford it. He found out that the pharmacist was charging more than other pharmacists did, and he asked for a reduced fee, but the pharmacist wouldn’t budge. Heinz steals the medicine to save his wife’s life.

Kohlberg would set the scene and then ask his subjects to talk about what they might do in that situation. He was more interested in their reasoning and how they justified their choices rather than the outcome they proposed. He would analyze the form of moral reasoning that they used and classify it into one of the six stages.

His methods have been criticized, with his strong emphasis on justice to the exclusion of other moral imperatives, such as caring. In fact, Kohlberg stated that women tend to get stuck at Level 3, with their main concern being how to maintain relationships and look after the welfare of others. He saw the masculine tendency of using abstract principles, and not being so concerned about relationships, as superior.

Carol Gilligan (1982), in In a Different Voice, argues that women’s priority on relationships is equally valid and that Kohlberg was excessively androcentric, emphasizing justice to the exclusion of other important values. Others have criticized the stages, saying there is often an overlap between stages and that people may move between stages, depending on the issue of concern. Perhaps the stages would be better thought of as domains. Also, evaluations of a person’s reasoning for moral choices are mostly post hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions (by both subjects and psychologists).

As trainers and supervisors, how do we encourage others to grapple with ethical dilemmas in a constructive way? I think establishing an environment of openness and trust is crucial. If trainees and supervisees do not feel safe, they will probably not take risks to speak up and say what they really think. If we can encourage them to be honest about their concerns and appreciate them bringing things to the training or supervision setting, this space can be a safe place to work through their feelings and thoughts about complicated issues and find ways to handle challenging situations.

As trainers and supervisors, we also need to model being willing to bring up difficult issues and to express them in a thoughtful and emotionally intelligent way. There may be times when we need to confront a trainee or supervisee about some behavior that we have concerns about. There may be times when trainees or supervisees confront us with some behavior of ours that they are not comfortable with, and it is wonderful to think that we were able to receive this information in an appropriate way.

Kohlberg believed, as did Piaget, that most moral development occurs through social interaction. Thus, a discussion approach to teaching ethics is relevant. Group supervision and training is a wonderful vehicle for encouraging discussion and different ideas on ways to handle particular issues and has the advantage of modeling that there are many pathways and many ways to consider managing issues of concern. Others in a group setting may come up with ideas that I have never thought of.

If you have found some interesting ways to explore and teach ethics, the Ethics Committee would love to hear from you.