Stages of moral development
In religion, morality can be childish or enlightened.
The New Mindscape #9–4.
The relationship between religion and ethics is not a simple one. Research has shown that we have the natural capacity to act morally or not and to make moral judgements, regardless of religion.
The question, then, is, can spirituality and religion strengthen or reinforce our natural moral instincts, and restrict our amoral ones? In other words, what role can spirituality and religion play in our moral development? The answer is not simple.
According to the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, humans can potentially go through six stages of moral development.[1] Below is a chart of the six first stages. Later, Kohlberg also speculated on a possible seventh stage, of “Transcendental morality”, or “morality of cosmic orientation”.[2] From this chart, we can see that different forms of social and religious behaviour correspond to each stage of moral development.
Kohlberg’s basic idea was that as human beings grow up, they go through different stages of moral development. As babies, little children, older children, adolescents and adults, we have different types of moral thinking at these different stages of life. These different stages have quite different ways of understanding morality. Of course, there is room to quibble about the specific details of these stages; for example, it may not be the case that we go through the stages that particular order. However, what is important is that Kohlberg does describe different types of morality very well.
Kohlberg talked about three different levels of moral development: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Some of these types, which are at what he called the ‘Level I’, the ‘pre-conventional’ stage, are actually a rather self-centred morality.
The ‘conventional’ here refers to social convention. The second level, i.e., the conventional level, simply means to follow the conventions of social behaviour. The pre-conventional level refers to the stages at which we don’t really care much about social conventions, but are concerned primarily with ourselves. We act morally to avoid punishment or to get rewards. At Level III, i.e., post-conventional morality, we become critical of social conventions from a moral perspective. We may find that social conventions are actually hypocritical; they are not necessarily moral. Therefore, to be a moral person does not necessarily imply following social conventions.
Religion and the stages of moral development
Different types of religious behaviour also match with these types of moral stages. For example, if we look at Stage 1 — “obedience and punishment-driven morality” — what is right or wrong is determined by what is punishable. Moral action is essentially the avoidance of punishment.
For example, little children cannot understand why they should act in certain ways. Therefore, we often train little children by means of punishment, because they don’t know how to reason morally. Likewise, it is a perfect way to train animals like horses and dogs, through reward and punishment.
This stage of moral development can also be found in religion. For example, the idea that if you do good, God will reward you; if you do bad, God will punish you. The purpose to be moral in this world is simply to avoid those punishments. In other words, why we should be good in this world is simply to avoid going to hell. “I don’t know why I shouldn’t do this, but I am afraid of going to hell, so I won’t do this thing”. That is a very widespread type of understanding of religion.
Advancing a little further in moral development, we also have morality driven by self-interest. Here, what is right or wrong is determined by what brings rewards, and what other people want. Other people’s wants and needs come into the picture, but only in a reciprocal sense, i.e., to obtain a certain type of reward from another person.
This is like the Chinese idea of guanxi or the Chinese way of using connections. I do something for somebody; but in my mind, I expect that person to do something back for me. This is self-interest-driven morality. People are good to others, but this goodness is driven by their self-interest. They are seeking for some kind of benefit from the people they are being good to.
We see this in religion too. For example, when people go to a temple, like Wong Tai Sin Temple or a Guanyin Temple, they often try to “make a bargain” with the god: “I buy the incense and worship you, and give a donation to your temple, so you should give me what I want.” First, I offer a gift to the god, like burning incense, donating money, offering animal sacrifices, and so on. But I’m giving that in the hope of receiving something in return. I want the god to make me healthy or rich, or to give me a good grade, or to succeed in a business deal. And so, if the prayer is answered — you actually get a very good grade or you make big profit from your business — you will return to the temple, and thank the god, giving more gifts back in return.
This is a self-interest-driven transactional relationship. You are being good to the person or the god, because you want something in return from that person or that god. That’s “pre-conventional” morality. Why do we call it pre-conventional? Because it is self-interested morality. You’re being moral simply because you are afraid of punishment or because you expect something from somebody.
Now let’s consider the “conventional” stage. This is the stage in which being moral means to follow the expectations of the group. What the majority thinks is morally right is right by definition. Last year, a student mentioned the example of giving our seats to the elderly or the pregnant in the MTR. He said this belongs to conventional morality because people assume that as teenagers, we are healthier so that we should help older people who need our seats. We are doing this not because we want to, but because we are under a certain pressure. So, when I see an elderly person standing there, I don’t want to stand up and give my seat to this person; I really want to keep this seat. However, if I don’t stand up, everybody is going to look at me, as if they were saying ‘Who do you think you are? You are so selfish. Don’t you care about others?’ Because I don’t want anybody to look at me like that, I’m going to stand up, and be a good person.
That is morality following social convention — simply doing what everybody in this society or culture considers to be moral. These are the things that you have to do, because if you don’t do them, people may think you are a bad or selfish person. However, in your heart, maybe you don’t want to do these things at all. In fact, maybe most people don’t want to do it. But most people are doing it, because that’s the convention.
There might be hypocrisy in this kind of activity. But at the same time, conventional morality does work for enforcing certain norms — so that the elderly can count on having a seat, even if most people are, secretly, not willing to give them a seat.
Another example is public charity. Everyone thinks that it is good. A lot of people do it, because it makes them look good. People do charity because it is what is expected, rather than what they want to do. Companies even do it for public relations.
We also see conventional morality operating in religion. For example, there are also people who go to church even though they don’t really believe in God or in the church teachings. Because in terms of social tradition and convention, in this neighbourhood, village or family, everybody considers that a good person will go to church. Because of that, if you are following conventional morality, you will go to church, even though you don’t believe in God. On Sundays, at church, people may be dressing up their Sunday best — looking elegant, polite, civilised and kind. But as soon as they go out of the church, who knows what they’re up to in the rest of their life?
To give another example, in some Muslim countries, everybody prays outside, whenever there is a call to prayer. Many of those people, in their minds, are not thinking about their prayer at all. If they want to be seen as good people, they need to publicly show that they are very pious. All these are examples of conventional morality — being moral simply out of convention.
In Conventional morality, being a good person consists in doing one’s duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the social order. Unquestioning acceptance of authority is considered to be the moral thing to do. This is something we see in most traditional societies and religious communities.
Finally, we advance to “post-conventional” morality. This is a kind of morality that is actually critical of social convention and thus does not necessarily follow social convention. On the contrary, it might even consider social convention to be hypocritical or immoral. The idea of this stage is that moral action is driven by inner conscience, which may not be in agreement with the public opinion or the law. People at this stage may actually consider that the convention is actually immoral. Society is hypocritical, as customs or social conventions are morally wrong, including religious customs and conventions. Therefore, people follow their own conscience, trying to apply universal ethical principles. They follow these principles because they believe that the principles are right, and we should do what is right.
It is not because I want to have a contract with somebody, or to find a way to negotiate my self-interests with somebody — it’s because I have a deep conviction that equality is right and must be upheld. It is right not because other people think it is right, and not because it brings me benefits, but simply because it is right, and so, I’m going to do something about it.
For example, I may believe that justice and freedom are right. Hence, I’m going to fight for that, because I firmly believe in it. I don’t do it because other people want me to respect justice or freedom. I will follow these principles, even when people disagree with me. So this is no longer conventional morality. It is not about following conventions, and it may even be about breaking them.
Later, Kohlberg added an additional stage – Transcendental Morality, or the “Morality of Cosmic Orientation”. He added this stage later in his life, when he realised that there is another stage, which is deeply spiritual and even deeply religious [3]. The reason for being moral is not that people believe in abstract principles of justice, equality or freedom, but that people have an inner love for all humans or for all living beings, which he called ‘agape’. This is the inner feeling that makes you suffer when other people suffer, and gives you joy when other people are joyful. It comes from inside of your heart. It is an expression of love and compassion for all of humanity and even all of creation. Such is the teaching of Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Baha’u’llah. The teachings of these great religious figures tried to bring humanity to that transcendental level of morality.
This is very important in the history of religions. Some of the world’s most influential religious figures broke the social, cultural and religious conventions of their time. Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha’u’llah all went against the conventional morality of their day. For that reason they were attacked and rejected by most people of their time.
Gautama Buddha broke all the conventions about building a successful family and being a good prince. He also rejected most religious conventions of his day, which were focused on ritual and extreme asceticism. Jesus broke the religious laws of the Sabbath as well as many other religious laws and custom, and he ignored the moral conventions against associating with prostitutes, tax collectors and members of other ethnic groups. Mohammad broke the moral conventions of the Arab people in which the supreme moral good was to advance the interest and honour of one’s own patriarchal clan in competition and war against others. Instead he advocated equality and justice for all, and improved the rights of women, slaves and religious minorities. Baha’u’llah broke the religious, racial, sexual and class prejudices of his day, to emphasize that all humans are equal citizens of the world. All of these figures broke the conventional morality of their society to establish a higher morality based on universal ethical principles.[4]
[1] Lawrence Kohlberg, Essays on Moral Development. San Francisco,Harper & Row, 1981–1984.
[2] Kohlberg, L., & Ryncarz, R. A. (1990). Beyond justice reasoning: Moral development and consideration of a seventh stage. In C. N. Alexander & E. J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on adult growth (pp. 191–207). Oxford University Press.
[3] Fernhout, Harry, and Dwight Boyd. “Faith in autonomy: Development in Kohlberg’s perspectives in religion and morality.” Religious Education 80, no. 2 (1985): 287–307.
Nidich, Sanford I., Randi J. Nidich, and Charles N. Alexander. “Moral development and higher states of consciousness.” Journal of Adult Development 7, no. 4 (2000): 217–225.
[4] Vasudev, Jyotsna. “Ahimsa, justice, and the unity of life: Postconventional morality from an Indian perspective.” Transcendence and mature thought in adulthood: The further reaches of adult development (1994): 237–255.
This essay and the New Mindscape Medium series are brought to you by the University of Hong Kong’s Common Core Curriculum Course CCHU9014 Spirituality, Religion and Social Change, with the support of the Asian Religious Connections research cluster of the Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences.
