Level of morality has been suggested as a basis for differentiating those that follow norms and laws from those that do not. Early research into what influences an individual to digress from the norm and laws of society have suggested that morality is a major influence. It is suggested that individuals differ in their understanding and application of moral behaviour.
Pioneers in this area of literature, such as Piaget have proposed that anti-social and criminal behaviour should be examined as the thoughts and judgements an individual makes rather than how they behave. This is an important factor to identify, once thoughts and judgements are understood they can be applied across a variety of contexts. Piaget suggested that morality develops throughout childhood and is a learned process. Piaget suggests that individuals construct and reconstruct knowledge of the world through social interactions. Kohlberg extended this theory to incorporate morality in adults. However, he did point out that the essence of morality lay in the rules of engagement learned during childhood.
Kohlberg proposes that a person progresses through stages of moral development and use this knowledge as a basis for ethical behaviour. Kohlberg proposed that an appropriate way to measure the level of morality is through the use of moral dilemmas. Kohlberg presents participants with moral dilemmas, usually involving a criminal or deviant act, and asks participants whether the act should be carried out. Participants are asked to give a rationale for their response, this rationale is then used as a basis to determine which stage of morality a person is in.
Kohlberg suggests that there are 3 levels of moral development, the first stage is the Pre-conventional level. During the Pre-conventional level individuals are concerned with avoiding punishment. The second stage is the Conventional level, during this stage individuals are concerned with following social and legal norms. The third and final stage is the Post conventional level, very few individuals are said to reach this stage, most stay within the conventional level. Individuals in the Post-conventional level are concerned with universal ethical principles. As a person develops through these stages a deeper and more comprehensive understanding is gained, and new principals are integrated with what has already been learned.
However, when level of morality is applied to the theory of criminal behaviour, it fails to allow for the fact that many offenders follow norms and laws of society in many aspects of their daily lives. The learned process of developing through the various stages is suggested as a one-way process, whereas many people who offend show care and compassion for others they care about, and their offending may have occurred for many reasons. The proposed stages ignore context and emotive factors which may influence offending.
However, in terms of how morality develops, there is much support for Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Snarey supports the underlying premise of the theory and suggests some caveats regarding urban and middle-class subcultures. Other researchers also supports the framework proposed by Kohlberg and have used this theory to investigate employee theft. The results indicated that those who operate at the conventional level stole less from the workplace than those who are at a lower level. This suggests that level of morality can influence offending behaviour.
Other researchers have investigated the effects of gender on moral development, Wark & Krebs provide overall support for Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning and found that females were more consistent in their moral reasoning than males. Gender differences are also observed by Hurwitz who suggests that females show preferences for preventative treatments rather than punishments when the norms and laws are violated in some way.
However, some have criticized the theory suggesting that it should incorporate a wider view of morality. For example, Tureill (1983) began to identify anomalies in the stage sequence in Kohlberg’s theory and suggested that major revisions were necessary. Another researcher named Nucci highlights the assumption that knowing what is right does not necessarily mean the individual will follow that course of action. Others have criticised the moral dilemmas formulated by Kohlberg as not being diverse enough, suggesting that there were no instances of group versus individual decisions, or scenarios that depict caring for others versus taking care of one’s own needs.
In conclusion, we develop moral behaviour during childhood and this can influence how we behave as adults. Although level of moral development cannon explain or account for all types of offending it is likely to influence whether or not we follow the same rules as everyone else.
