This Short Paper Assignment Requires That You Locate An Indi

This Short Paper Assignment Requires That You Locate An Individual Not

This short paper assignment requires that you locate an individual not associated with this course to interview. The interview will take approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. The interview will be most effective in person, but if this is not possible the interview can take place over the phone, through email, or through any other appropriate means of technology. During the interview, you will present the interviewee with the Heinz dilemma, made famous by Kohlberg, and after a review of the dilemma, you will ask follow-up questions. You will review your interviewee’s responses and select which stage of moral development is indicated by the each of the responses.

You will reflect on if you believe this is an accurate assessment of the individual’s level of moral development. Utilizing criticisms of Kohlberg’s model and this experience, you will construct a position on the utility of Kohlberg’s model for assessing moral development. Consider if Kohlberg’s theory accounts for atypical moral development (i.e., criminal behavior or aggressive actions). For additional details, please refer to the Module Eight Short Paper Guidelines and Rubric document in the Assignment Guidelines and Rubrics section of the course. PLEASE REMEMBER TO USE THE PERSON IN THE CONSENT FORM*

Paper For Above instruction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the applicability and limitations of Kohlberg’s moral development theory through an interview-based assessment. The assignment necessitates identifying a non-course individual, ideally in person, to interview approximately 10–15 minutes. The interview involves presenting the Heinz dilemma, developed by Lawrence Kohlberg, which probes moral reasoning regarding a hypothetical scenario involving theft to save a life. Questions following the dilemma aim to gauge the interviewee’s moral reasoning stage, based on Kohlberg’s stages: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional morality.

Conducting the interview requires careful preparation: understanding Kohlberg’s stages thoroughly and framing follow-up questions that effectively distinguish between them. For example, a response emphasizing obedience and punishment suggests a pre-conventional stage, whereas a focus on social order indicates a conventional level, while moral principles resonate with a post-conventional stage. After the interview, I will analyze the responses, identifying the stage each reflects, and evaluate whether this classification accurately captures the interviewee’s moral reasoning. Recognizing the influence of cultural, social, and personal factors is critical, as these can impact moral judgments and challenge the universality of Kohlberg’s stages.

Critically, Kohlberg’s model has faced scholarly critique, especially regarding its gender bias, cultural limitations, and applicability to criminal and aggressive behaviors. Critics argue that Kohlberg’s stages may overemphasize justice and individual rights while neglecting communal or relational aspects of morality, which Carol Gilligan notably highlighted. Additionally, the model may not adequately encompass the moral reasoning underlying criminal acts or antisocial behaviors, which can be driven by psychological, social, or environmental factors rather than moral maturation stages. This reflection considers whether Kohlberg’s framework can accommodate atypical moral development and whether it offers a comprehensive measure of moral maturity.

Overall, this assignment allows for an experiential understanding of moral development and critical engagement with theoretical models. While Kohlberg’s stages provide a structured approach to analyzing moral reasoning, their limitations suggest the necessity for more inclusive, culturally sensitive, and context-aware frameworks. The interview-based assessment, combined with scholarly critique, demonstrates that moral development is complex and multifaceted, requiring nuanced interpretations beyond rigid stage categorizations.

References

• Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. Harper & Row.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press.
• Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2006). Moral development, self, and identity. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 647–691). Wiley.
• Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and application. Routledge.
• Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Stage consistency and decision-making. Cambridge University Press.
• Thompson, K. (2006). Does Kohlberg’s theory of moral development explain criminal behavior? Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 271–283.
• Walker, L. J. (2004). Moral development: An introduction. In L. J. Walker (Ed.), Moral development in the professions (pp. 3–22). Routledge.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger Publishers.
• Lind, G. (2010). Morality, moral development, and criminal justice: Examining Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 350–357.
• Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge University Press.