In Business and Society, Lawrence and Weber (2008) provide a weak and rather tertiary discussion on moral reasoning. A superficial examination of universal principle is coupled with conflicting information regarding sound moral reasoning. Based solely on the  information provided, the business leader can infer that anything goes provided it can be justified (e.g. relative ethics). While Lawrence and Weber identify five universal values (do not harm, be fair and just, be honest, respect others’ rights, and do your duty/act responsibly) their identified “ethical reasoning” methods fall short in support of universal principle. The utility approach examines the overall amount of good by an action and calls for a balance sheet for deciding what is the best decision. Under this rationale, almost any morally suspect action can be justified given that a greater good is contrived. The human rights approach can also fall prey to relative ethics, because other rights can be identified to trump another right. Finally, the justice approach focuses solely on one of several aforementioned universal principles. What we are left with from Lawrence and Weber’s discussion are conflicting guidelines regarding how one should apply moral reasoning.

The main point missed, is an emphasis on the importance of universal principles as a mature way of moral reasoning. An important foundation for this is Lawrence Kohlberg’s monumental and increasingly popular work on moral reasoning, which are presented by Lawrence and Weber as a figure (p. 102) with a small attribute to Kohlberg in fine print. I will fill the void in Lawrence and Weber’s discussion by emphasizing universal principle through attention to Kohlberg’s theory.

Background Information

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was a psychologist at the University of Chicago (“Lawrence Kohlberg,” 2011). Kohlberg grew up in an assimilated Jewish community with parents that divorced and split the family. He excelled in the advanced private schooling he attended, eventually starting college at the prestigious University of Chicago in 1948, where he finished his bachelor’s degree in about a year (Garz, 2009).

Kohlberg began a study in 1955 with his thesis, in an attempt to continue Jean Piaget’s 1932 study on the moral development of the child (Garz, 2009). He wanted to test Piaget’s previously untested hypothesis that moral judgement moved from heteronymous to autonomous thinking by the age of 12 or 13. In a longitudinal study, he interviewed several mostly white boys in the Chicago suburbs (later adding some delinquent boys) using moral dilemma questioning. He presented the stages formally in his 1958 dissertation The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. He continued testing and refining  his theory throughout his lifetime.

Kohlberg was found to be 30th on the list of most influential psychologists of the 1900s. He contracted a parasite during international travel and suffered from this for several years, both physically and mentally. Sadly, in 1987 Kohlberg drown himself in the Atlantic ocean near Boston (Garz, 2009).

Basic Tenants

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Reasoning include six steps that a person must sequentially progress through to achieve the higher levels of moral reasoning.  Originally, this was theorized to be age specific, but later was recognized as independent from age with many adults not progressing to high stages of development. The stages are as follows:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation: e.g. How can I avoid punishment?

2. Self-interest orientation: e.g. What's in it for me?, Paying for a benefit

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity: e.g. Social norms, the good boy/good girl attitude

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation: e.g. Law and order morality

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation

6. Universal ethical principles: e.g. Principled conscience

Current Applications

The importance of Kohlberg’s work is in highlighting universal principle as the highest order of moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s theory directly supports Kantian ethics that preceded him. Immanuael Kant introduced the “Categorical Imperative,” which stated our moral duties are prescriptive and independent of consequences (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 2003). Holding to these values is important in the face of all kinds of pressure. This is especially important and applicable to the business world, where the almighty dollar rules behavior.

Kohlberg’s stages simply establish a hierarchy and do not deal with how to resolve a moral dilemma when universal principles are in direct conflict. We must extend Kohlberg’s work to provide a pragmatic construct for moral decision making, to include identification of the moral principles by which appropriate moral decisions should be made. A common set of moral principles found in canonized books and rules throughout the world, throughout history include:

1. Justice: Includes distributive, procedural, retributive, and compensatory
2. Honesty: Being truthful or trustworthy. If you disagree with something you have three choices: accept it and participate anyway, accept it but try to change it, refuse to participate.
3. Responsibility: Accounting for actions
4. Beneficence: Condition of not doing harm, preventing harm, removing harm, or doing good. (Lumpkin, Stoll, Beller, 2003)

These universal principles are similar to the ones identified by Lawrence and Weber. In the case of a direct moral conflict, whereby no other decision can be made without violating a principle, one principle must be weighed as more important than the other. In other words, an exception is allowed. Exceptions should be avoided if at all possible.

Thanks to Kohlberg and his work to clearly define the stages of moral reasoning, we now have a clearly defined model that emphasizes universal principle as a higher order of thinking. While Kohlberg’s theory does not go without challenge, the idea of universal principle is still the most widely accepted philosophical paradigm regarding moral decision making. Now if we were to add Kohlberg’s theorized seventh stage into the discussion, we would certainly reintroduce some confusion, but we will leave that alone for now.

References

Garz, D. (2009). Lawrence Kohlberg - an Introduction. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

Kohlberg, Lawrence (1958). The development of modes of thinking and choices in years 10 to 16. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2008). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy. Princeton, N.J: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.

Lawrence Kohlberg. (2011, January 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:33, February 22, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Kohlberg&oldid=406245450

Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S.K., & Beller, J.M. (2003). Sport Ethics: Application for Fair Play (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill