科尔伯格道德发展水平理论：科尔伯格的道德发展水平理论

How do people develop morality? This question has fascinated parents, religious leaders, and philosophers for ages, but moral development has also become a hot-button issue in psychology and education. Do parental or societal influences play a greater role in moral development? Do all kids develop morality in similar ways?

人的道德是如何发展的？长久以来，这一问题一直吸引着父母、宗教领袖和哲学家们。在道德发展方面，父母和社会之间，谁的影响更大呢？所有孩子的道德发展过程都是相似的吗？

One of the best-known theories exploring some of these basic questions was developed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg.2 His work modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's previous work to form a theory that explained how children develop moral reasoning.

对于这些基本问题，最广为人知的理论之一，是由 心理学家Lawrence Kohlberg提出的。他对 Jean Piaget（让·皮亚杰）的理论进行了修改和扩展，提出了儿童道德推理发展方式的理论。

Piaget described a two-stage process of moral development. Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan. His theory outlines six stages of moral development within three different levels. It is extremely rare to regress in stages—to lose the use of higher stage abilities. Stages cannot be skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them

Piaget 认为道德发展过程分为两个阶段，Kohlberg在此理论上进行了扩展，提出，道德发展是延续终生的持续过程。其理论将道德发展过程分为三个层级，三个层级中又细分为六个阶段。各阶段极少会出现退行情形，极少会失去更高层阶段能力。各阶段无法跳过，每一阶段都提供了一个新的、必须的视角，每一阶段都比之前阶段要更全面、更差异化，但同时又与之前阶段密不可分。

In recent years, Kohlberg's theory has been criticized as being Western-centric with a bias toward men (he primarily used male research subjects) and with having a narrow worldview based on upper-middle-class value systems and perspectives.

近年来，Kohlberg的理论因其以西方为中心、样本偏见（主要采用男性研究对象）、基于中上层价值体系和观点的狭隘世界观而受到诟病。

The Heinz Dilemma

Heinz 困境

Kohlberg based his theory on a series of moral dilemmas presented to his study subjects. Participants were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario.

Kohlberg的理论是基于向研究对象们展示的一系列道德困境故事。之后，研究人员会与研究对象面谈询问，以了解他们对每个场景所达成判断结果背后的推理过程。

One example was "Heinz Steals the Drug." In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

其中一个例子是 Heinz偷药。在这一场景中，一位女性罹患癌症，她的医生认为只有一种药可能能够救她。但这个药是当地一位药剂师发现的，他每剂药的成本是200美元，售价是2000美元。这位女性的丈夫，Heinz，最多只能凑到1000美元。

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

他曾尝试和这位药剂师议价，或希望对方能够让自己先赊欠一部分，后期慢慢偿还。但这位药剂师均表示了拒绝。然后，Heinz就强行闯入了药店，偷走了这个药，去救自己的妻子。Kohlberg问道，“这位丈夫应该这样做么？”

Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to whether Heinz was wrong or right but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. He then classified their reasoning into the stages of his theory of moral development.

Kohlberg并不是很关心答案认为Heinz是对是错，而是更在意每位研究对象所得结论之后的逻辑推理过程。之后，他将他们的推理过程归入了其道德发展理论的各个阶段。

后习俗道德水平

阶段6

普适型道德准则（如果每个人都这样做呢？）

Heinz：人的生命有着最高的内在价值。如果我眼睁睁看她死去，我是无法原谅自己的。

阶段5

社会契约导向

（这是好男人都会做的选择）

Heinz（社会有权利确保其存活下去。如果我眼睁睁看她死去，在其他人面前我是无法抬起头的。）

习俗道德水平

阶段4

法律与秩序导向

（履行个人职责）

“拯救一个人的生命要比保护财产更重要”

阶段3

乖孩子

（为我而做）

“因为他爱他的妻子，所以他应该这么做。”

前习俗道德水平

阶段2

相对功利导向

（如果让人感觉良好，那就去做）

“如果他老婆人很好，又漂亮，他应该这么做。”

阶段1

惩罚与服从导向

（如果不被抓住，可以这么做）

“取决于他在警队里认识什么人。”

The understanding gained in each stage is retained in later stages, but may be regarded by those in later stages as simplistic, lacking in sufficient attention to detail.

每一阶段所获得的认知，会在后续阶段继续保留，但可能会在之后被视为简单、未充分考虑细节。

01

Pre-conventional

前习俗水平

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children and is expected to occur in animals, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring

前习俗道德水平在儿童群体中尤为常见，而且在动物群体中也存在，但成年人也可能会表现出这一道德水平。该道德水平人群会根据某行为的直接后果来判断该行为的道德性。该水平包含道德发展的第一阶段和第二阶段，以一种自我中心的方式，完全围绕个体自身。处于该道德水平的孩子尚未接受或内化社会的是非标准，而只是主要聚焦于特定行为所导致的外在后果。

In Stage one (obedience and punishment driven), individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time I did that I got spanked, so I will not do it again." The worse the punishment for the act is, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is "egocentric", lacking recognition that others' points of view are different from one's own. There is "deference to superior power or prestige".

在第一阶段（服从与惩罚驱动），个体聚焦于其行为对其自身所带来的直接结果。例如，如果行为主体受到惩罚，那么该行为则被视为是不道德的。“上次我那样做的时候，我被打屁股了，所以我以后不再那样做了。”惩罚越严厉，那么该行为就会被视为越“不对”。这就会导致一种推理结论，即，即使无辜的受害者，也会根据其遭受的痛苦程度而感到相应程度的内疚。该阶段是“自我中心”的，缺乏对与自己不同的其他人视角的认知。这段时期会表现出对更高权力或威望的遵从。

An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a child refusing to do something because it is wrong and that the consequences could result in punishment. For example, a child's classmate tries to dare the child to skip school. The child would apply obedience and punishment driven morality by refusing to skip school because he would get punished.

关于服从与惩罚驱动型道德阶段，其中一个例子是，一个孩子可能会因为某件事时错误的，且可能会导致惩罚，而拒绝做某件事。比如，一个孩子的同学试图让孩子逃学，这个孩子就会启动服从与惩罚驱动型道德推理，拒绝逃学，因为他会受到惩罚。

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what's in it for me" position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest, or whatever is "convenient," but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one's reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual's own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality, which is commonly described as quid pro quo, a Latin term that means doing or giving something in order to get something in return. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all actions at this stage have the purpose of serving the individual's own needs or interests. For the stage two theorist, the world's perspective is often seen as morally relative. See also: reciprocal altruism.

阶段二（自利驱动）表达的是“对我有什么好处”立场。这一阶段，一个个体对正确行为的定义是，它是否是对自己最有利的，换言之，最“方便”的，但同时对“有利”的理解又很狭隘，因为他并没有考虑到自身名誉，或者与集体的关系。阶段二道德水平中，不是很在意别人的需求，除非它能够对自己更加有利。因此，对别人的关心，并非基于忠诚或内在尊重，而是出于一种“你帮我，我帮你”的思维。通常这被描述为quid pro quo，这一拉丁词的意思是，为了得到回报而做一件事或给予某样东西。前习俗阶段的缺乏社会视角，与社会契约阶段（第五阶段）是相当不同的，因为该阶段，所有的行为都是为了服务于个体自身的需求或利益。第二阶段这种世界观通常被视为“道德相对主义”。另外可参见“互惠利他主义”

RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM

互惠利他主义Reciprocal altruism (according to Trivers) is altruism that occurs between unrelated individuals when there will be repayment (or at least the promise of repayment) of the altruistic act in the future (Trivers, 1971 ).

（根据 Trivers理论）互惠利他主义是指在两个不相关个体中，对于所发生的利他行为，将会在未来有回报（或至少许诺有回报）。

(Hamilton objected to this use of altruism, and suggested ‘reciprocity’ instead). An example is mutual grooming among many birds and mammals.

（Hamilton反对“利他主义”的这一用法，建议应采用“互惠”一词）。其中一例，就是很多鸟类和哺乳动物之间互相梳毛。

02

Conventional习俗水平

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

道德发展习俗水平通常见诸青少年和成年人群中。所谓习俗水平，是指在判断某些行为是否道德时，会将这些行为与社会的观点和期望进行比较。习俗水平包含道德发展过程的第三和第四阶段。该道德水平的典型特征，是认可社会在是非方面的习俗惯例。该水平个体会服从规则，遵守社会准则，即使无论服不服从都不会导致任何后果。但对规则和习俗惯例的遵从在一定程度上是死板的，而且几乎不会去质疑一项规则的适宜性或公平性。

In Stage three (good intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views. They try to be a "good boy" or "good girl" to live up to these expectations, having learned that being regarded as good benefits the self. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the "golden rule". "I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me." Conforming to the rules for one's social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that "they mean well".

在第三阶段（社会一致决定的良好本意），个体通过遵守社会规范而融入社会。个体对其他人的肯定和否定持开放态度，因为这些反映了社会的观点。他们已经知道被视为好人，能够给让自己受益，因此他们会试图做一个“乖孩子”，来满足这些期望。第三阶段道德推理中，在判断一件行为的道德性时，可能会评估某件行为对一个人的人际关系所导致的后果，这一评估范围现在开始纳入尊重、感恩和“黄金准则（己所不欲受，勿施于人）”等因素。“我想要被人喜爱，很明显，不捣乱，可以让人们喜欢我。”这一阶段的个体还未充分理解各种社会角色都应遵守其相应的规则。在这一阶段的道德推理过程中，行为人的本意扮演着更为重要的角色。如果一个人觉得某件行为“本意是好的”，那么就可能感到更愿意去宽容该行为。

In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

在第四阶段（权威与社会秩序驱动），会重视遵守法律、规定和社会习俗等，因为它们对于维护社会正常运行而言很重要。因此，该阶段的道德推理超出了第三阶段所表现出的对个体认可的需求。该阶段，通常由一个核心的理念或一些核心理念来判断是非。如果一个人违反了法律，那么可能每个人都会，因此，每个人都有义务和责任去遵纪守法。当有人的确违反一项法律，那么在道德上就是错误的。因此，罪责（culpability，是否有错），是该阶段的一个重要因素，因为它区分了好与坏。社会中大部分活跃成员都会一直处于第四阶段，该阶段，道德依旧主要由外部力量决定。

03

Post-conventional后习俗水平

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.

后习俗水平，也被称为“原则水平”，特征是，该水平人群越来越意识到个体区别于社会，个体视角应高于社会视角。对于那些不符合自身原则的法规，个体可以不遵守。后习俗水平人群遵守的是自己的道德准则，这些准则通常包括关于生命、自由和正义的一些基本人权。表现出后习俗道德水平的人群将认为规则是有用的，但同时也是可以变通的机制——理想情形下，规则能够维持基本社会秩序，同时捍卫人权。规则并非必须应该去毫无质疑去遵守的绝对命令。因为后习俗水平个体更重视自己对某情形的道德评估，而非社会习俗，他们的行为，尤其第六阶段时，可能会被和前习俗水平混淆。

Some theorists have speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

一些理论家认为，很多人可能永远都无法达到这一抽象道德推理水平。

In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to and tha meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

在第五阶段（社会契约驱动），世界被视为是存在着不同观点、权利和价值观的。每个人或社群都有着自己独特的观点，都应该被互相尊重。法律，被视为社会契约，而非死板教条。无法捍卫整体利益的法规，在必要条件下，应该被更改为“能够符合大多数人最大利益”。这一点通过多数决定法和不可避免的妥协来实现。民主政府明显基于第五阶段道德推理。

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level. Touro College Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg's first five stages through data analysis, but could not provide statistical evidence for the existence of Kohlberg's sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a concrete stage in moral development.

在第六阶段（普遍道德准则驱动），道德推理过程中，会基于普遍道德准则进行抽象推理。法律只有在源于公平时才被视为有效。而对正义的坚守，则意味着有责任去不遵守不公平法律。法律权利并非必须，因为对于道德义务行为，社会契约并非关键要素。决策并非在以有条件的前提下通过假设而做出，而是以绝对方式无条件做出，正如康德的道德哲学理论所持观点。在这一理论下，行为，并非是一项工具，而是目的。一个人开展某一行为，并非因为这样可以避免惩罚，或是出于个人最佳利益，或是符合别人期望、法律标准或之前约定，而是因为该行为本身是正确的。尽管Kohlberg坚称第六阶段存在，但他发现很难找到持续处于这一阶段的个体。托罗大学研究人员 Arthur P. Sullivan 通过数据分析，佐证了 Kohlberg前五阶段的精确性，但对于该第六阶段，却无法提供数据证据。因此，这一阶段很难被定义、被认可为道德发展中一个切实存在的阶段。

康德(Immanuel Kant, 1724~1804)是以理性的自律为基础而开展其道德哲学的论点；亦即当道德言行依理性实践时，便成就一项具有道德价值的行动。故其道德哲学又称为自律伦理学。

康德道德哲学是由日常生活中之行为表现作为反省的起点。当一人偷窃时，人们会说「予以排斥」，表示他「不应该偷窃」。此时所呈现的「应该」，即具有「应然」的意义在，且有别于「实然」的命题。然而人如何产生这类应然命题的判断？康德进而反省发现，当人们在作此项宣称时，所彰显的是一项法则或具有普遍规范的命题，所以康德提出其道德哲学中的第一项命题：仅依据你能认同它成为一项普遍法则而行动。具体而言，亦即道德主体在产生一项行动时，应考虑到别人的认同。当人能作如此考量时，实即已重视其他存有者的地位了。依此，康德即推论出其道德体系中第二项目的自身(end-in-itself)程式：如此行动，即无论在你的人格还是其他每个人之人格中的「人道」(humanity)，你始终同时当作目的，绝不只当作工具来使用。康德认为，没有人会自愿成为别人的工具，同时在日常生活中亦无法避免成为达成别人目的之工具，故应进一步提升为目的自身，亦即以重视如自己一般的态度去重视对方之存在。康德这项原则之产生并不在于为了避免别人将自己只视为工具，其更深的意义，在于每个道德主体均是有理性者，亦即每个主体都如同我自己一般均是能成就道德价值的行动者，具有绝对的存在意义。所以推论出第三项原则：仅依据那些意志所决定能同时成为普遍法则的格律而行动。康德沿续其在〔纯粹理性批判〕中的论点，认为人是有理性的存有者；当人将理性应用到道德实践时，即会产生具有道德价值的行动。这是因为理性本身是纯粹的，而且是与个人情感或慾望相对立的。故当有理性者之理性起作用时，呈现出的即是一项不具有个人私慾或爱好的行动。道德行动之产生因而无须由外在规定或强迫，只需依自身之理性作用即能成就。所以道德行动只需自我律令，亦即自律，即能呈现，故康德的道德哲学亦称为自律伦理学。

04

Further stages

其他阶段

In his empirical studies of individuals throughout their life, Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality. In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4½ or 4 , a transition from stage four to five, that shared characteristics of both. In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong. Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.

在对个体持续终生的实证研究中，Kohlberg发现，一些人很明显经历了道德阶段退行现象。解决这一问题，要么是修改自己理论中原来关于道德阶段不可退行的观点，要么是扩展理论。Kohlberg选择了后者，提出了“次级阶段”概念，即，新萌生的阶段尚未充分纳入一个人的性格。Kohlberg特别提到了4½ 或 4 阶段，即，从第四阶段向第五阶段之间的过渡阶段，该过渡阶段同时表现出四、五阶段的特征。在这一过渡阶段，个体对“法律与秩序”推理的专制特征表现出不满，对“有错”的观念，常常从“由社会定义一个人是否有错”转变为“认为社会本身是有错的”。这一阶段通常会被与第二阶段的道德相对主义相混淆。在第二阶段的相对主义道德观点中，个体会将与自身利益相冲突的社会利益视为相对错误或不道德的。Kohlberg指出，这一过渡阶段通常可见诸刚刚进入大学的学生群体中。

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning. Kohlberg's difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage, however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.

Kohlberg提出可能还存在第7阶段，先验道德阶段，或 宇宙导向道德——该阶段将宗教与道德推理联系在一起。但由于其甚至无法为第6阶段找到实证证据，因此他特别强调了第七阶段具有猜测性。

Theoretical assumptions (philosophy)

理论假设（哲学）

Kohlberg's stages of moral development are based on the assumption that humans are inherently communicative, capable of reason, and possess a desire to understand others and the world around them. The stages of this model relate to the qualitative moral reasonings adopted by individuals, and so do not translate directly into praise or blame of any individual's actions or character. Arguing that his theory measures moral reasoning and not particular moral conclusions, Kohlberg insists that the form and structure of moral arguments is independent of the content of those arguments, a position he calls "formalism".

Kohlberg的道德发展阶段理论基于这一假设：人类本质上是沟通性的、具有推理能力，有想要理解他人和周围世界的意愿。该模型各阶段只与个体所采用的定性道德推理过程相关，并不直接可转换为对任何个体行为或性格的赞扬或批评。Kohlberg认为自己的理论只衡量道德推理过程，而非特定道德结论，因此，他坚称，道德论证的形式和结构是独立于道德论证内容的，对这一立场，他称之为“形式主义”。

Kohlberg's theory centers on the notion that justice is the essential characteristic of moral reasoning. Justice itself relies heavily upon the notion of sound reasoning based on principles. Despite being a justice-centered theory of morality, Kohlberg considered it to be compatible with plausible formulations of deontology and eudaimonia.

Kohlberg 的理论的核心理念是，正义是道德推理的基本特征。正义本身很大程度上依赖于基于原则的明智推理。尽管该道德理论以正义为核心，但Kohlberg认为其理论也与义务论和Eudaimonia相兼容。

*关于Eudaimonia，请见本期另一篇文章

Kohlberg's theory understands values as a critical component of the right. Whatever the right is, for Kohlberg, it must be universally valid across societies (a position known as "moral universalism"): there can be no relativism. Moreover, morals are not natural features of the world; they are prescriptive. Nevertheless, moral judgments can be evaluated in logical terms of truth and falsity.

Kohlberg的理论将价值观作为“正确”的一个关键要素。对其而言，无论“正确”是什么，它都应该是放之四海皆准的。（这类观点被称为道德普遍主义），在道德方面，相对主义是不存在的。另外，道德，并非这个世界固有的特征，而是规定的。但道德判断可以通过逻辑真假来评判。

According to Kohlberg, someone progressing to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For example, an individual cannot jump from being concerned mostly with peer judgments (stage three) to being a proponent of social contracts (stage five). On encountering a moral dilemma and finding their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, however, an individual will look to the next level. Realizing the limitations of the current stage of thinking is the driving force behind moral development, as each progressive stage is more adequate than the last. The process is therefore considered to be constructive, as it is initiated by the conscious construction of the individual, and is not in any meaningful sense a component of the individual's innate dispositions, or a result of past inductions.

据 Kohlberg观点，进入更高道德推理阶段，是不会跳过其中某个阶段的。例如，一个个体无法从阶段三（主要在乎身边人的评判）跳到阶段五（支持社会契约）。但，当遇到一个道德困境，发现他们当前的道德推理水平无法令自己满意时，一个人会朝更高水平迈进。意识到当前思维阶段的限制，是道德发展的驱动力，因为更高级阶段总是比前一阶段要更完备。因此，这一过程被视为是有建设性的，因为它由个体的意识构建而推动，而非是源于个体的内在本性，或过去经历的归纳。

Formal elements形式要素

人际视角

社会视角水平

6看到人的易错性和脆弱性是会受到沟通的影响的

将互相尊重视为普遍准则

5认为契约会给双方带来更多益处

契约视角

4能够看到抽象的规范体系

社会体系视角

3辨识好的和坏的动机

社会关系视角

2看到a）其他人也有目标和偏好；b）或是遵守或是偏离规范

功利利己主义

1无人际视角：只认可自己和规范

盲目利己主义

Progress through Kohlberg's stages happens as a result of the individual's increasing competence, both psychologically and in balancing conflicting social-value claims. The process of resolving conflicting claims to reach an equilibrium is called "justice operation". Kohlberg identifies two of these justice operations: "equality", which involves an impartial regard for persons, and "reciprocity", which means a regard for the role of personal merit. For Kohlberg, the most adequate result of both operations is "reversibility", in which a moral or dutiful act within a particular situation is evaluated in terms of whether or not the act would be satisfactory even if particular persons were to switch roles within that situation (also known colloquially as "moral musical chairs").

一个人想要实现Kohlberg 道德阶段的进阶，需要不断提升自己的能力，这里的能力既包括心理上的能力，也包括在面对相冲突社会价值观主张时的平衡能力。这种解决相冲突主张，达成平衡状态的过程，被称为“正义运作”。Kohlberg指出了两种正义运作：“平等”，即对所有人一视同仁，和“互惠”，即会考虑到一个人的美德。对于Kohlberg而言，两种运作方式的最适宜结果，是“可反转性”，即，对于特定情形中的某个道德或尽职行为，当该情形中的人互换角色，该行为是否还依旧令人满意（也被俗称为道德抢椅子游戏）。

Knowledge and learning contribute to moral development. Specifically important are the individual's "view of persons" and their "social perspective level", each of which becomes more complex and mature with each advancing stage. The "view of persons" can be understood as the individual's grasp of the psychology of other persons; it may be pictured as a spectrum, with stage one having no view of other persons at all, and stage six being entirely socio-centric. Similarly, the social perspective level involves the understanding of the social universe, differing from the view of persons in that it involves an appreciation of social norms.

知识与学习，会推动道德阶段的提升。尤其重要的是，一个人的“人际视角”和“社会视角水平”，二者随着道德阶段的提升，都会变得愈加复杂和成熟。“人际视角”，可以被理解为一个人对其他人心理的理解能力，全部阶段的人际视角可以被视为一个渐进谱，从第一阶段的毫无人际视角，到第六阶段的社会中心视角。同样，社会视角水平包含对社会整体的理解，与人际视角的区别在于，社会视角包含对社会规范的理解。

Critiques/批判观点

Androcentrism

以男性为中心

A critique of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions.

关于Kohlberg理论的其中一个批判观点是，它只强调正义，而忽视了其他价值观，因此并未充分应对那些重视行为中其他道德因素之情形。

Carol Gilligan, in her book In a Different Voice, has argued that Kohlberg's theory is excessively androcentric. Kohlberg's theory was initially based on empirical research using only male participants; Gilligan argued that it did not adequately describe the concerns of women. Kohlberg stated that women tend to get stuck at level 3, being primarily concerned with details of how to maintain relationships and promote the welfare of family and friends. Men are likely to move on to the abstract principles and thus have less concern with the particulars of who is involved. Consistent with this observation, Gilligan's theory of moral development does not value justice above other considerations. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring. Critics such as Christina Hoff Sommers argued that Gilligan's research is ill-founded and that no evidence exists to support her conclusion.

Carol Gilligan在其著作《In a Different Voice》中，认为 Kohlberg的理论过度以男性为中心。Kohlberg的理论最初基于全部采用男性参与者的实证研究。Gilligan认为这并未充分描述女性的顾虑。Kohlberg 认为，女性常常会卡在第三水平，主要只关心“如何维系关系，如何让家庭和朋友过得更好方面”的细节问题。而男性则可能会上升至抽象原则阶段，因此对具体个体并不是那么在意。Gilligan的道德发展理论并没有将正义凌驾于其他考虑因素之上。她根据“关怀道德理论”，提出了另外的道德推理理论。而 Christina Hoff Sommers等评判家则认为 Gilligan的研究证据无合理依据，并没有证据能够支持她的。

Cross-cultural generalizability

跨文化概括性

Kohlberg's stages are not culturally neutral, as demonstrated by its use for several cultures (particularly in the case of the highest developmental stages). Although they progress through the stages in the same order, individuals in different cultures seem to do so at different rates. Kohlberg has responded by saying that although cultures inculcate different beliefs, his stages correspond to underlying modes of reasoning, rather than to beliefs.

从其所采用的几种文化来看，Kohlberg的道德阶段并非是文化中性的（在最高发展阶段尤为如此）。尽管进阶顺序都是一样的，但不同文化中的个体的进阶速度似乎并不相同。Kohlberg回应说，尽管文化会灌输不同的理念，但他理论中的各道德阶段应对的是底层推理模式，而非理念。

Are there distinct stages of moral development

是否有明确不同的道德发展阶段？

Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support this conclusion. For example, a person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one situation (post-conventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story.

In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules.

What is more, individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen actually slipped backward.

The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak, and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiourity of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

Kohlberg认为各独特道德阶段的确存在。但证据并非总是支持其结论。例如，一个人在某情形中基于原则推理（后习俗道德阶段5或6）而达成某一决定，在其他情形中则常常会后退至习俗推理水平（阶段3或4）。

实际上，似乎关于正确和错误的推理，更多是取决于具体情形，而非个人准则。

另外，人们也并非总是沿着这些阶段前进，Rest（1979）发现，有1/14的人实际上会退行。

看起来并没有有利证据能够证明存在明显不同的道德发展阶段，而且，一些人还认为，这一理论也反映了一种文化偏见，即，将美国价值观视为比其他文化和社会的价值观要优越。

Reasoning vs. intuition

推理vs 直觉

Other psychologists have questioned the assumption that moral action is primarily a result of formal reasoning. Social intuitionists such as Jonathan Haidt argue that individuals often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such as fairness, law, human rights or ethical values. Thus the arguments analyzed by Kohlberg and other rationalist psychologists could be considered post hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions; moral reasoning may be less relevant to moral action than Kohlberg's theory suggests.

其他心理学家曾质疑“道德行为主要是形式推理的结果”这一假设。社会直觉论者，如 Jonathan Haidt认为，个体通常会在做出道德判断时，不去衡量诸如公平、法律、人权或道德价值观等方面的考虑因素。因此，Kohlberg和其他理性论心理学家所分析的道德判断理由，也可以被视为对直觉决定的事后理性化。道德推理与道德行为之间，可能并不像Kohlberg理论所说的如此相关。

Apparent lack of postconventional reasoning in moral exemplars

道德模范人群中明显缺乏后习俗道德推理水平

In 1999, some of Kohlberg's measures were tested when Anne Colby and William Damon published a study in which the development was examined in the lives of moral exemplars that exhibited high levels of moral commitment in their everyday behavior. The researchers utilized the moral judgement interview (MJI) and two standard dilemmas to compare the 23 exemplars with a more ordinary group of people. The intention was to learn more about moral exemplars and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Kohlberg measure.

1999年，Anne Colby和William damon出版了一项研究结果，该研究测试了Kohlberg的一些方法。他们通过研究在日常行为中表现出高度道德承担水平的道德模范们的生活，来审视这一道德发展理论。研究人员采用了道德判断访谈（MJI）和两个标准的道德困境，将23位道德模范和普通人群作对比。研究目的旨在更深入了解道德模范，并审视Kohlberg方法的优势与劣势。

They found that the MJI scores were not clustered at the high end of Kohlberg's scale, they ranged from stage 3 to stage 5. Half landed at the conventional level (stages 3, 3/4, and 4) and the other half landed at the postconventional level (stages 4/5 and 5). Compared to the general population, the scores of the moral exemplars may be somewhat higher than those of groups not selected for outstanding moral behaviour.

他们发现，MJI得分并没有******在Kohlberg道德阶段的高阶，而是分布在阶段3与5之间。一半处于习俗水平（阶段3、3/4、4），另一半处于后习俗水平（阶段4/5、5）。与普通对照组相比，道德模范的评分可能在某种程度上较高。

Researchers noted that the "moral judgement scores are clearly related to subjects' educational attainment in this study". Among the participants that had attained college education or above, there was no difference in moral judgement scores between genders. The study noted that although the exemplars' scores may have been higher than those of nonexemplars, it is also clear that one is not required to score at Kohlberg's highest stages in order to exhibit high degrees of moral commitment and exemplary behaviour.

研究人员表示，“道德判断得分明显与本研究活动参与对象的教育成就相关”。在获得大学以上学历的参与人群中，道德判断评分在两性之间并无区别。该研究还发现，尽管道德模范的得分可能比普通对照组较高，但也很明显的是，并不是一定要在Kohlberg的最高阶段，才能够表现出高度的道德承担和模范行为。

Apart from their scores, it was found that the 23 participating moral exemplars described three similar themes within all of their moral developments: certainty, positivity, and the unity of self and moral goals. The unity between self and moral goals was highlighted as the most important theme as it is what truly sets the exemplars apart from the 'ordinary' people. It was discovered that the moral exemplars see their morality as a part of their sense of identity and sense of self, not as a conscious choice or chore. Also, the moral exemplars showed a much broader range of moral concern than did the ordinary people and go beyond the normal acts of daily moral engagements.

除他们的得分之外，研究人员还发现，这23位道德模范在描述他们的道德发展时，都提到了三个相似的主题：确定性、积极性，以及自我与道德目标的统一。自我与道德目标的统一，被视为最重要的主题，因为这是将道德模范与普通人区分开来的关键要素。研究发现，这些道德模范将他们的道德，视为自身身份感与自我意识的一部分，而非将其视为一种有意识的选择或任务。

Rather than confirm the existence of a single highest stage, Larry Walker's cluster analysis of a wide variety of interview and survey variables for moral exemplars found three types: the "caring" or "communal" cluster was strongly relational and generative, the "deliberative" cluster had sophisticated epistemic and moral reasoning, and the "brave" or "ordinary" cluster was less distinguished by personality.

通过对与道德模范开展的各种访谈与调查进行集群分析，Larry Walker并没有确认有一种最高阶段道德水平存在，而是找出了三种类型：

“关怀”或“集体感”集群高度重视关系，具有高度传承力；

“审慎”集群表现出高水平的认知和道德推理能力；

“勇敢”或“普通”集群则在性格上并没有很明显的区别特征。

（The term "generativity" was coined by the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson in 1950 to denote "a concern for establishing and guiding the next generation." It can be defined as creativitybetween the generations. Generativity can be expressed in literally hundreds of ways, from raising a child to stopping a tradition of abuse, from writing a family history to starting a new organization. One can try to "make a difference" with one's life, to "give back," to "take care" of one's community and one's planet.“Generativity”一词由精神分析学家 Erik Erikson于1950年首次提出，用于指代“对‘培养并指引下一代’的关心”。该词可以被定义为代际创造力。Generativity可以表现为数百种形式，从抚养孩子，到终止虐待传统、从书写家庭历史，到建立新的组织等。一个人可以为自己的生活带来改变，可以回馈或照顾自己的社群或星球等。）

Continued relevance

持续存在的影响

Kohlberg's body of work on the stages of moral development has been utilized by others working in the field. One example is the Defining Issues Test (DIT) created in 1979 by James Rest, originally as a pencil-and-paper alternative to the Moral Judgement Interview. Heavily influenced by the six-stage model, it made efforts to improve the validity criteria by using a quantitative test, the Likert scale, to rate moral dilemmas similar to Kohlberg's. It also used a large body of Kohlbergian theory such as the idea of "post-conventional thinking". In 1999 the DIT was revised as the DIT-2; the test continues to be used in many areas where moral testing is required, such as divinity, politics, and medicine.

Kohlberg的道德发展阶段理论也被该领域其他一些学者所采用。其中一例，是James Rest于1979年所创造的《定义问题测试》，最早该测试是道德判断访谈的书面形式。在受到六阶段模型的深刻影响的同时，该测试还特别通过采用李克特量表这种量化测试形式来为与Kohlberg理论中相似的道德困境评分，从而提升了正确性。它同时还采用了Kohlberg理论的大部分内容，如“后习俗水平思维方式”等。1999年，DIT被修订至DIT2，该测试继续被用于很多需要道德测试的领域，如宗教、政治和医学等领域。