Applying Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Reasoning to Janet’s Case

Part One: Janet’s Next Step based on one of the stages of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning 

Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning is one of the practical applications that can significantly assist individuals to make sound judgments when faced with moral or ethical dilemmas. Moral dilemmas refer to scenarios or situations whereby an individual has to choose between two different alternatives, neither of which addresses or determines the cases in an honorable or accepted manner. Notably, moral dilemmas occur due to situational conflicts whereby siding with one would imply transgressing the other. Kohlberg’s theory can assist resolve such scenarios, including the one faced by Janet, who is contemplating to break into her estranged husband’s house to get her diabetes supplements despite being evicted and unwanted. The moral dilemma in this situation exists in two ways. First, she either can refuse to break into the house to get her supplies but suffer later dire diabetes consequences, or she can disobey the legal requirements and social order by quickly sneaking in and getting her suppliers. 

Kohlberg’s theory or moral reasoning can guide Janet’s judgment in six different ways. The first two are possible options for Janet, but the third is the most appropriate based on her situation. Firstly, she can opt to follow the two preconventional level options (external forces), including obedience and reward. Basing her reasoning on stage one of the preconventional level (obedience orientation), Janet can refuse to break into the house to avoid disobeying the law or getting into trouble. She can also choose to obey stage two of the preconventional level (instrumental orientation) by walking away arguing that stealing the drugs might bring her more problems. Janet’s decision can also be influenced by the second stage of Kohlberg’s theory: the conventional level. She can choose the third (interpersonal norms) stage by allowing other’s expectations of her to influence her decision. She can achieve this by walking away to maintain a good reputation as an honest and honorable lady. Besides, Janet can refuse to steal the drugs because it is illegal and punishable. This reasoning is based on stage four of the conventional level, which primarily focuses on the social system morality (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2019) 

The fifth and sixth options for Janet are anchored on Kohlberg’s postconventional level of moral reasoning, which focuses on the personal moral code. Based on the fifth stage (social contract), Janet can opt to steal the supplies because the legal laws and social guidelines no longer guarantee her welfare. Based on the sixth stage (grounded on ethical principles), she can steal the medicines because saving her life is more important than anything else, including the rule of law. I believe this sixth option is the best for Janet because walking away is detrimental to her health since she does not have any job or money. 

Part Two: A preconceived view that was later challenged in life 

There is no question that the environment plays a central role in influencing human behavior. Things that children are taught at a very tender age often tend to impact them once they reach adulthood. Prejudice and preconceived views are some of these common environmental factors that are embedded in us while minors. As such, we grow up despising or stereotyping certain groups of people, communities, religions, and social class of people. However, at some point in life, we end up realizing that some of these views were facts while some were just mere propaganda. 

As a minor, one of the few communities I grew up hating was the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) group. In particular, I was born into a very religious family where any abnormal behavior such as same-sex relationship was seen a taboo. Not only my parents or relatives despised LGBT people, but even the community also was not willing to allow these individuals to integrate well with others. We all grew up prejudicing and discriminating lesbians and gays to the extent that they never honestly came out to reveal their sexual orientations. Some of the reasons, as I have come to realize now, these people never came out openly was perhaps the absence of the vibrant present-day activism that has seen them get recognition even through legal frameworks. The society labeled the LGBT group an ‘outcast' community that deserved no constitutional right at all, including the right to worship, access to healthcare, quality education, and many others. We thought these people were psychopaths and needed both spiritual and medical intervention. 

However, as an adult, I have come to realize these people are rational and deserve to live healthy lives just like the rest of us. In fact, as a fully trained psychotherapist, I have developed compassion towards LGBT individuals and now striving to improve their access to quality care, a benefit they never had when I was growing up. I am now fully aware that these people are reasonable and not psychopaths as we were taught as minors. 

Reference

Kail, R. V., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (2019). Human development: A life-span view. Boston, MA: Cengage.