Cultura Francesa

"México, cuando permanece fiel a si mismo, no tiene nada que recibir de nadie, sino al contrario, tiene todo para dar"
Antonin Artraúd.

Condiciones para la construcción de Valores en la Escuela

Por Irma Osnaya Sánchez

A los inicios de la década de los ochenta, la polémica acerca de la socialización en la escuela, era la principal atención sobre las funciones sociales, económicas y sobre todo ideológicas de las instituciones educativas.
Era entonces cuando prevalecía la concepción de la escuela como un aparato ideológico de la dominación y consecuente con esto el discurso acerca de la educación se dirigía a criticar el carácter reproductor de la misma, siendo el salón de clases el espacio particular dentro de un campo específico de relaciones sociales. De manera que la especificidad de lo "escolar", está tanto teñida o signada por la historia y la cultura de la sociedad a la que pertenece, como que también de una manera no lineal ni automática, la escuela resume, sintetiza y "traduce" en su propio código, el de la sociedad. El salón de clases representa así una pequeña unidad donde lo social habita estructurado de una manera particular.
Por lo que es necesario encarar el tratamiento diagnóstico y experimental de la formación en valores en la escuela, a fin de detectar los valores vigentes en la realidad cotidiana de las aulas, de identificar el o los mecanismos de formación en valores y de distinguir las posibilidades de intervención en este sentido. Lo anterior se fundamenta en la teoría de la reproducción social y cultural (Bourdieu) y en la teoría de la vida cotidiana y de los valores (Héller) y específicamente, la dimensión del objeto que atañe al proceso de socialización en tanto formación en valores que se desarrolla en el aula, articula tres perspectivas teóricas: el proceso de socialización como proceso normativo (Durkheim), el proceso de socialización como desarrollo del juicio moral (Piaget), y el proceso de socialización como trama de interacciones implícitas o invisibles (vitae oculto: Jackson, Eggleston, Apple).

Lo expuesto anteriormente, nos lleva a formular unas interrogantes:

-¿Hacia dónde orientar la educación en esta época de incertidumbre con respecto al destino del hombre?

-¿Qué tipo de hombre debe formarse, para que pueda salir con éxito de las crisis recurrentes?

-¿Con bases en qué criterios de debe actuar frente a situaciones de conflicto?

Estas eran preguntas obligadas hace algunos años y en la actualidad cobran mayor importancia cuando se habla de una crisis de valores o de una crisis de valoraciones.
El desarrollo tecnológico, la globalización de los mercados y de la cultura, la relevancia de la información y del conocimiento en los procesos productivos y sociales modifican las maneras de entender el mundo y bosquejan nuevas formas de relación entre las personas.
En la época actual cambian las pautas culturales, las percepciones sobre la familia, sobre el valor del dinero, la conciencia de lo que es relevante y lo que es accesorio, etc. Surgen nuevas pautas de acumulación económica, predomina el individualismo, se pierde el sentido de trascendencia; pero paradójicamente, también existen refuerzos renovados en la lucha por la justicia y la equidad, contra los fanatismos y a favor de un progreso científico que beneficie a la humanidad en su conjunto.
En todo esto se aprecian cambios de conductas tras los cuales existen valores que se derrumban y otros que emergen con pujanza: la conciencia ecológica, la preocupación y ocupación por los derechos humanos, la igualdad de sexos, la democratización de la información y del conocimiento, la pluralidad, la tolerancia, el respeto y la dignidad. En el eje de esta problemática está la preocupación por el ser humano y la preservación de la vida, tener una mejor calidad de vida, asegurar un desarrollo sustentable, ser mejores personas con excelencia mundial, aquí y ahora, como expresión de una nueva ciudadanía.
La formación de una nueva ciudadanía requiere actores sociales con posibilidades de autodeterminación. Se necesita, en sí desarrollar valores, actitudes y capacidades, así como habilidades generales que permitan el dominio y creación del conocimiento. En el eje de todo esto se encuentra la educación.
A la educación le atañe la formación y el bienestar de las personas y de manera explícita, busca el desarrollo integral del individuo para un ejercicio pleno de las capacidades humanas. Para conseguir este fin se necesitan sólidos cimientos sobre los cuales basar las decisiones y comportamientos, de modo que éstos correspondan con los postulados legales. Tales cimientos son los Valores y las Actitudes.
Los valores constituyen la base de las actitudes y las conductas externas; son los cimientos de una educación encaminada a lograr un desarrollo humano integral que busca formar al hombre y preparar al profesionista, pero además se necesita desarrollar y profundizar una serie de valores y actitudes que permitan a este profesionista normar un criterio sobre los problemas del mundo actual a fin de que pueda participar de manera coherente y propositiva en su solución

Así se concluye que la formación en valores es un proceso que se desarrolla en forma espontánea, no dirigida ni explícita, en el transcurso de las relaciones cotidianas, a través de la forma en que se orienta la apropiación de los conocimientos y de las normas que se establecen para regir el comportamiento escolar, y a través del tipo de interacciones personales que se establecen entre maestros y alumnos. Esto propicia que los estudiantes y profesionistas establezcan una relación con el conocimiento y con las normas de convivencia y desarrollen estructuras y formas de organización del pensamiento y de su socialidad, que favorecen o no el desarrollo de la capacidad de elección, principio básico de la formación en valores.
Así la escuela como espacio institucionalizado de la socialización desarrolla esta función respondiendo a la demanda social de capacidad y desarrollo de habilidades necesarias para el aparato productivo; a la necesidad del estado de organizar el consenso social, y a las diversas expectativas que cada sector social genera en relación con esta instancia. .
En este orden institucional la escuela tiene como función específica transmitir e inculcar; es decir, formar en determinados valores. Entonces la escuela, como institución debe transmitir un marco valorativo congruente con la legislación, en cuanto al ámbito donde se establecen cuáles son los valores considerados socialmente legítimos y con la política educativa.
Empero, los valores formulados como orientación axiológica de la escuela en cuanto institución no son los únicos vigentes, puesto que la escuela no es la única institución social de la formación en valores, las referencias axiológicas inmediatas a la práctica social cotidiana, están implícitas en la práctica escolar a través de los sujetos de la práctica escolar: docentes, alumnos, autoridades, administrativos, etc., que son participes de la sociedad en conjunto.

¿Cómo enseñar a niiños de preescolar el significado de los símbolos patrios?

En una de nuestras sesiones, tuvimos la oportunidad de escuchar a una maestra de 3ro de preescolar hablar sobre la formación cívica y ética en ese nivel.
Comentaba la importancia de que los niños aprendan desde temprana edad a sentirse identificados con su país, conocer su historia y por qué se nos identifica con tal o cual bandera y demás símbolos.
Los niños desde pequeños, tienen noción de las cosas, absorben con esponjas cualquier cosa que se les enseñe y su cerebro es una masa fresca dispuesta y abierta al aprendizaje.
Es necesario mencionar que actualmente, la SEP está integrando nuevamente materias que se habían quedado olvidadas. Una de ellas es la referente a la cívica y ética, donde entra la importancia de aprender los símbolos que nos identifican como mexicanos, el respeto hacia la patria y los valores que procuran desarrollar seres humanos con integridad.

Dentro de las escuelas preescolares, las maestras tienen el deber de inculcar en los niños respeto y reverencia al país. Una manera de hacerlo es a través de los honores a la bandera. Las maestras escogen a niños para que memorizen efemérides (fechas importantes) y para que participen en la escolta que paseará la bandera. Mientras se invite a los niños a participar haciéndolo de una manera entusiasta y significativa, ellos podrán sentir emoción por realizar una ceremonia referente a su país.

The task of teaching Values

A value is the assumption of which can be the basis for ethical action. A value system is a set of consistent values and measures. A principle value is a foundation upon which other values and measures of integrity are based. Those values which are not physiologically determined and normally considered objective, such as a desire to avoid physical pain, seek pleasure, etc., are considered subjective, vary across individuals and cultures and are in many ways aligned with belief and belief systems. Types of values include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological (religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values which aren't clearly physiologically determined are intrinsic such as altruism and whether some such as acquisitiveness should be valued as vices or virtues. Values have typically been studied in sociology; anthropology; social psychology; moral philosophy and business ethics.

In Education the purpose of values is to develop integral human beings, who can be prepared to live in a culture, time and place according to their beliefs and convictions.
Values are an integral part of every culture. With worldview and personality, they generate behavior. Being part of a culture that shares a common core set of values creates expectations and predictability without which a culture would disintegrate and its members would lose their personal identity and sense of worth. Values tell people what is good, beneficial, important, useful, beautiful, desirable, constructive...etc. They answer the question of why people do what they do. Values help people solve common human problems for survival. Over time, they become the roots of traditions that groups of people find important in their day-to-day lives.

At schools it is important that teachers consider 3 important elements at the time of teaching values:
1. Knowledge of the students- A value can be learnt if it's in agreement to the student background.
2. Knowledge of the content- The teacher must prepare the class and must look for a material/resource to teach it (movie, story, skit, etc).
3. Selection of a teaching procedure- The teacher must choose a class dynamic or teachung technique.
Finally, it is important to do the evaluation and feedback at the end of the session to corroborate that everything was understood.

Education and values

In our country there are some laws about education that have been established with the purpose of creating values in every people who study. But despite of that, they do not talk about how to teach them in schools and how to get a quality education. So what is the cause of our poor and low education system? Why students are not applying the values? Why teachers are not teaching them in order to stay in student’s mains and hearts?
Children are like sponges, they absorb (do) everything they see on tv, hear from their parents, other kids and teachers. That’s why it’s really important to include in every school a program about values, where children can learn how to put the in practice in different situations.
Puebla is one of the first states that started to include values at schools. Now at days not only private schools have classes and a specific teacher of civic and ethics, also public schools are developing programs and forums where students and teachers talk about how live the values.
There’s not a unique hierarchy of values, every person decide which values are the most important according to their principles and background. Children though, still need to get orientation about this. The author mentions a hierarchy of values according to the different school levels, kinder, elementary school, junior high and high school. It is very practical; the values start from those ones that are concrete to the abstract and complex ones.
In order that schools, families ad society in general educate children with a strong conviction that cheating, disobedience or laziness are not ways to get the success, but on the contrary, to take care of others, do a good effort and be responsible, happy and dedicated it is the best way to be an integrity and moral person.

Kohlberg's Summary

It is interesting how Kohlberg does not focus a lot in specific values, but instead he does in what is concern to morality. He even developed his own theory of moral development. In there, he proposed three levels of moral reasoning.
The first level (pre-conventional) means that children's decisions are based on avoiding punishment and receiving rewards. The second level (conventional), the highest value is following the rules of the society. At the third level (post-conventional), people follow universal moral values and make their own choices.
In order to make these classifications, Kohlberg applied a lot of moral dilemmas to people and he classified the answers he got. Kohlberg established also that democracy in the classroom was the base for a moral development. One of his statements in his theory is that people cannot understand moral reasoning more than one stage ahead of their own. It means that for example a 7 year old kid maybe can understand the moral of a 10 year old, but not beyond that. This says that moral is such a complex topic.
The theory stages
At stage 1 children think that by doing what is right they will avoid the punishment. At stage 2, children are not really impress for any single authority; they can distinguish the sides of the issues. At stage 3, they believe that being a good person, basically means helping people whom they are close to. At stage 4, they believe that by obeying laws, a society will be united. At stages 5 and 6 people do not really care about maintaining society for it own sake (obeying rules), but more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society, according to them.

Lawrence Kohlberg

Born in Broxville, N.Y (1927-1987), Kohlberg was a well-known theorist in the field of moral development. He posed moral dilemmas (e.g., Heinz Dilemma) to his subjects then asked questions to probe their reasons for recommending a specific course of action. Lawrence Kohlberg was a professor of Education and Social Psychology at Harvard University and is best known for his influential work in moral development and moral education.

Kohlberg's interest in morality developed from these experiences and from the theories of Jean Piaget, who studied the cognitive development of children. In his doctoral dissertation, Kohlberg examined the ways that children reason about what is right and wrong. He presented boys, ages ten to sixteen, with a series of moral dilemmas—stories about people in situations who had to make difficult decisions. The most famous dilemma asks whether a man whose wife is dying from a rare form of cancer should steal the only medicine that might save her life from a scientist who refuses to sell the drug at a price the man can afford.

Stages of Moral Reasoning
From his research, he identified six stages of reasoning at three levels:

Level One:
Pre-conventional Morality Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Orientation
Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation
Level Two:
Conventional Morality

Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation
Level Three:
Post-Conventional Morality

Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation


Based on this research, Kohlberg developed his theory of moral development. He proposed three levels of moral reasoning. At the first level (pre-conventional), children's decisions are based on avoiding punishment and receiving rewards. At the second level (conventional), upholding the rules of society is the highest value. At the highest level (post-conventional), individuals follow universal moral principles that may be more important than the rules of a particular country or group. Clearly Kohlberg was influenced by his own experiences when he broke England's law in order to carry out what he believed was a higher moral imperative: to aid refugees of the Holocaust.
Kohlberg extended his theory into practice with applications to moral education in classrooms. Following criticism that his work dealt with moral reasoning, but not moral action, he developed a program in which participatory democracy in the classroom served as the basis for moral development. A major debate about Kohlberg's theories was sparked by Carol Gilligan, a professor at Harvard, whose research reflected the view that women's morality differs from that of men's, on whom most of Kohlberg's research was based.

Kohlberg also applied the cognitive-developmental approach to the development of gender identity. His research showed that children's understanding of gender is linked to their level of cognitive development.

Movement through the Stages
Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is a stage theory. In other words, everyone goes through the stages sequentially without skipping any stage. However, movement through these stages is not natural, that is people do not automatically move from one stage to the next as they mature. In stage development, movement is effected when cognitive dissonance occurs ... that is when a person notices inadequacies in his or her present way of coping with a given moral dilemma.
But according to stage theory, people cannot understand moral reasoning more than one stage ahead of their own. For example, a person in Stage 1 can understand Stage 2 reasoning but nothing beyond that. Therefore, we should present moral arguments that are only one stage ahead of a person's present level of reasoning to stimulate movement to higher stages.
Describing the stages

Level 1. Preconventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).
Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz’s theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinz’s action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish.
Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might think it's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn't have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 24). Another boy said Heinz might steal it because maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them. But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for more years than he could stand. (Colby and Kauffman. 1983, p. 300)
What is right for Heinz, then, is what meets his own self-interests.
You might have noticed that children at both stages 1 and 2 talk about punishment. However, they perceive it differently. At stage 1 punishment is tied up in the child's mind with wrongness; punishment "proves" that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, in contrast, punishment is simply a risk that one naturally wants to avoid.
Although stage 2 respondents sometimes sound amoral, they do have some sense of right action. This is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals. The philosophy is one of returning favors--"If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." To the Heinz story, subjects often say that Heinz was right to steal the drug because the druggist was unwilling to make a fair deal; he was "trying to rip Heinz off," Or they might say that he should steal for his wife "because she might return the favor some day" (Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 19).
Respondents at stage 2 are still said to reason at the preconventional level because they speak as isolated individuals rather than as members of society. They see individuals exchanging favors, but there is still no identification with the values of the family or community.
Level II. Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her," and "His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves." Even if Heinz doesn't love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because "I don't think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die" (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 36-42; Kohlberg, 1958b).
If Heinz’s motives were good, the druggist's were bad. The druggist, stage 3 subjects emphasize, was "selfish," "greedy," and "only interested in himself, not another life." Sometimes the respondents become so angry with the druggist that they say that he ought to be put in jail (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 26-29, 40-42). A typical stage 3 response is that of Don, age 13:
It was really the druggist's fault, he was unfair, trying to overcharge and letting someone die. Heinz loved his wife and wanted to save her. I think anyone would. I don't think they would put him in jail. The judge would look at all sides, and see that the druggist was charging too much. (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25)
We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors' character traits and motives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and the understanding judge. His answer deserves the label "conventional "morality" because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community—"anyone" would be right to do what Heinz did (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 25).
As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg's first three stages and Piaget's two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioning obedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. For Kohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn't function. As one subject explained,
I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41)
Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 27).
You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the same response, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into the reasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and "It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say that stealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conception of the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds the grasp of the younger child.
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22).
Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.
In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wife’s right to live is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimes defend Heinz’s theft in strong language:
It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is more important than property.
This young man went on to say that "from a moral standpoint" Heinz should save the life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of a life means any life. When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied:
Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judge should weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in punishing Heinz lightly. (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38)
Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about "morality" and "rights" that take some priority over particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to be at stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk about the "right to life," but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of their social or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making more of an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying to determine logically what a society ought to be like (Kohlberg, 1981, pp. 21-22; Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 83).
Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.
Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.
In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another's eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties--the druggist, Heinz, and his wife--take the roles of the others. To do this in an impartial manner, people can assume a "veil of ignorance" (Rawls, 1971), acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over property; for he wouldn't want to risk finding himself in the wife's shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved--this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not be reached.
Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but he has temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg has concluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing between stage 5 and stage 6 thinking. He believes that stage 6 has a clearer and broader conception of universal principles (which include justice as well as individual rights), but feels that his interview fails to draw out this broader understanding. Consequently, he has temporarily dropped stage 6 from his scoring manual, calling it a "theoretical stage" and scoring all postconventional responses as stage 5 (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 28).
Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civil disobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws through democratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake does violating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws and democratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience (Kohlberg, 198 1, p. 43).