A young man was sentenced to serve 10 years for selling a small amount of marijuana when he was 15 years old. He escaped from prison six months after his sentencing and moved to a different state. The authorities located him when he went to vote, 30 years later. He is a professional carpenter and a model citizen. Should he be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his 9.5-year sentence? Why or why not? Is your answer to this question based in the preconventional, conventional or postconventional level of moral reasoning? Should the level of moral reasoning be based on the stage of development that the man was in when he escaped from prison, or when he was located by authorities? Explain.

Review Kohlberg's Levels of Moral Reasoning from your text by clicking on tabs below:

My personal answer would be that I don't think he should have to serve that sentence because it's excessive for such a harmless action and the law is wrong, which would be an answer past on postconventional moral reasoning. It is specifically based on Stage 6, universal principles, because it appeals to principles beyond the law.

As for how the law should regard moral reasoning, that's a problem because Kohlberg believed that most people don't even reach the level of moral reasoning that the law is theoretically based on (social contract theory) in their entire lifespan, so that would make it problematic to hold any criminal accountable.

Step-by-step explanation

As I alluded to, there are a lot of potential ways to answer this question according to Kohlberg's Stages. Kohlberg found that people develop through different stages of moral thinking, three stages with two "substages" each, for a total of six stages.

Preconventional morality, usually held by young children, involves basing moral decisions on simple principles like "bad things happen to bad people" or "he's bad because the adults said so."

1. Obedience and Punishment: In this view, you're good to avoid punishment and, if you get punished, you must have done something bad. An answer consistent with this version of morality would be "he must have been guilty since he was sent to prison, so he should still be punished."
2. Individualism and Exchange: In this view, whatever is good or bad is what an authority figure says. Again, according to this logic, one would answer that he should still serve his prison sentence because the law says he did something wrong.

Conventional morality involves basing right and wrong on social rules in some way.

1. Interpersonal Relationships: You act good to be liked and bad to be disliked. An answer based on this substage might be, "Well, why does he expect people to support him for selling pot?"
2. Social Order: This view entails a knowledge that laws and rules exist to maintain a kind of social order. This is where morality starts getting more complex and you can reach different conclusions. For instance, you might say that he needs to be punished or else people would know they can get away with crimes. Alternately, you might say he shouldn't be punished because then his family and the community he is part of are being disrupted and that's not what the law is meant for. Both of these are acceptable answers under this substage, because they focus on the effects of the rules on the social order.

Post-conventional morality involves deeper, more logical thinking.

1. Social Contract Theory: This is, in a way, a more refined version of the social order view. It rationalizes that we give up certain freedoms and agree to certain restrictions so we can have a safe, orderly society. A social contract theorist would ask if the freedom to sell pot is worth giving up and if society gains something worth the trade-off.
2. Universal Moral Principles: As I mentioned, this is where you base your answers on something beyond the law, some principle like logic, compassion, mercy, justice, etc. You won't necessarily disagree with the law, it just isn't what you base your decision on. For example, if your principle is "people who sell drugs are bad," then you oppose that no matter what the law says. Because this describes any type of principle-based reasoning, there are essentially infinite ways to answer the question according to this substage.