Levels of moral reasoning

• Level of moral reasoning – moral reasoning refers to the way a person thinks about right or wrong. It is presumed that such thinking then applies to moral behaviour. The higher the level, the more that behaviour is driven by a sense of what is right and the less it is driven by just avoiding punishment or avoiding the disproval of others.
• Moral development (stages)

  Kohlberg (1968) was the 1st researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to offending behaviour. They proposed that peoples decisions and judgements on issues of right or wrong can be summarised in a stage theory or moral reasoning – the higher the stage the more sophisticated the reasoning.
• Kohlberg based his theory on peoples responses to a series of moral dilemmas – Heinz dilemma.

  Many studies suggests offenders tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-offenders. Kohlberg et al 1973, using his moral dilemmas found that a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral development than non-violent youths – even after controlling for social background
• Offenders

  More likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg's model (stages 1 & 2)
• Non-offenders

  Generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond
• Pre-conventional level

  • Characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
  • Associated with less mature, childlike reasoning
• Adults and adolescents who reason at the pre-conventional level

  May commit a crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money, increased respect etc.
• Offenders are often more egocentric (self-centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non offender peers
• Individuals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence
• link with criminality

  Offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg’s model (stages 1 & 2), whereas non-offenders have generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond. The pre-conventional level is characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, & is associated with less mature, childlike reasoning à adults and adolescents who reason at this level may commit a crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money, increased respect etc.
• Link with criminality - This assumption is supported by studies which suggest that offenders are often more egocentric (self-centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non offender peers (Chandler 1973). Individuals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence
• One strength is evidence for the link between level of moral reasoning and crime.

  Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form. Which contains 11 moral dilemma relates questions such as not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a friend. The offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group. This is consistent with Kohlberg’s predications.
• One limitation is that the level of moral reasoning may depend on the offence.

  Thornton and R.L Reid 1982 found that people who committed crimes for financial gain (e.g. robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes (e.g. assault). Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which the offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment. This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.
• Kohlberg's theory is useful in that it provides insight into the mechanics of the criminal mind – that offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when it comes to making moral judgments than the law abiding majority à COUNTERPOINT à
• à COUNTERPOINT à however, moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour. Moral reasoning of the kind Kohlberg was interested in is more likely used to justify behaviour after it has happened (Krebs and Denton 2005)
• Another limitation is cognitive explanations are descriptive not explanatory

  -While the cognitive approach may be good at describing the criminals mind, it is rather less useful when it comes to explaining it

  -Cognitive explanations are 'after the fact' theories - useful when predicting offending but they give us little insight into why the offender committed the crime in the 1st place

  -This questions whether cognitive explanations provide us with the underlying cause of criminal behaviour