Morality in psychology (issues & debates)

This answers a different question. "He was wrong, stealing is never acceptable" is a moral opinion — no level to credit. The task is classification: quote the reason given (not the deed), name the level, and justify from its signature — punishment (pre-conventional), the law (conventional), principle (post-conventional). Never leave it blank.

A whole item scores zero because it was about the wrong level — and conventional, in the middle, is swapped most. Two habits: underline the level named and write it first; and anchor each to its question — "what happens to me", "what others expect", "is the rule right". An example about a principle overriding a law has drifted to post-conventional.

The level is set by the reason, never the decision. Two people can reach opposite decisions from the same level, and the same decision from different levels — so "they both returned the wallet, so same level" is wrong. Reporting only what the person decided identifies no level. Match the justification to a signature, not the choice.

"A strength is that it is useful" names a point and stops. A creditworthy point has three parts: the point, why it follows, and the consequence. Example: "the levels classify reasoning not the decision, so two people who disagree can still be placed consistently across cultures". Explain a strength = the why and consequence, not just the point.

Asked for the difference between two levels, candidates write a paragraph on each and leave the examiner to spot the contrast — one mark at best. A connective earns the second mark: "conventional accepts the law as it stands, whereas post-conventional judges it against a principle and may break it". Connectives: whereas, however, in contrast.

Two recorded slips. Defining a different stage from the one named — the same swap made against Piaget's cognitive stages. And giving only the age range: "around seven to eleven" describes when, not what. A definition must say what the reasoning is like — its appeal to punishment, approval or principle — the age band alone is not creditworthy.

Two distortions. "Post-conventional means ignore laws." No — laws are judged against principles, so a reasoner may decide a law should be kept because it is fair. It is about what the law is measured against, not whether it is obeyed. "It is the morally best answer." The levels grade reasoning sophistication, not how good a person is.

Taught alongside Piaget's stages, candidates assume a tidy age for each and that everyone reaches the top. The order is fixed but the timing is not — movement is gradual, rates differ, and many never reach post-conventional, so an age-range answer is wrong. As AO3: loose timing makes it hard to test, since any result can be called slower development.