Level of Moral reasoning
Level 1: Pre-conventional
Children accept the rules of
authority figures (e.g. parents and
teachers) and judge actions by
consequences. Actions resulting in
punishments are bad; those that
bring rewards are good.
Level 2: Conventional
Individuals continue to believe that
conformity to social rules is
desirable, but this is not out of
self-interest. Maintaining the
current social system ensures
positive human relationships and
social order.
Level 3: Post-conventional
(principled)
The post-conventional individual
moves beyond unquestioning
compliance with the norms of their
own social system. They now define
morality in terms of abstract moral
principles that apply to all societies
and situations.
Sub-stage
Description
Stage 1
Punishment and obedience
orientation
This style of morality ignores the intentions behind a behaviour and focuses on obeying rules that are enforced by
punishment
Stage 2
Individualism, instrumental
purpose and exchange
Children view actions as ‘right’ if they satisfy their own needs
Stage 3
Mutual interpersonal
expectations (the good boy/nice
girl stage)
This is a ‘good boy – good girl’ orientation. What is right/good is defined by what is expected by others. It is important
to be seen to be good
Stage 4
Law and order orientation or
Social-order-maintaining
orientation
The rules and laws of society define morality in order to maintain social order. Individuals become more socially aware
and community oriented, considering the possible effect of a behaviour on a wider society.
Stage 5
Social contract orientation
Laws are still seen as important: where they are seen as consistent with individual rights and the interests of the
majority, they are upheld (to preserve social order), however there might be occasions when they can be changed or
ignored. Some values are relative, while others (e.g. the sanctity of life) are not negotiable.
Stage 6
Universal ethical principles
The individual has developed their own principles of morality. Laws usually conform to these but where this is not the
case, the individual acts in accordance with their moral principles. The individual takes into account the likely views of
everyone who will be affected by a moral decision.
THESE ARE NOT IN THE CORRECT ORDER – YOU NEED TO DECIDE WHICH STAGE THEY
GO INTO
(e.g. ‘Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because he might get caught and sent to prison’)
(e.g. ‘the pharmacist should recognise that the right to life is more important than property and all
concerned ought to agree that the fairest outcome is that the wife should be given the drug’.)
(e.g. Heinz should not steal the drug because he must obey the law which is designed to protect
everyone)
(e.g. ‘although there is a law against stealing, the law wasn’t meant to violate a person’s right to
life’.)
(e.g. ‘stealing is ok because Heinz had to do it to save his wife’)
(e.g. ‘Heinz should steal the drug for his wife because it shows that he loves his wife.’ Or ‘Heinz
should not steal the drug because his family will be ashamed of him.’)