I read, studied and taught Kolberg'theory in courses for nurses . This theory for me has always been very interesting, but it has always been found very difficult to understand and to use by students. A bit 'of time not deepen, but I think to use it effectively should be a little' changed. I do not know much more as an alternative, but his thinking should be developed.

Despite my English, I am very interested the theme !!!!

Giovanna

You ask:  what is the most logical theory of moral development among the scholarly theories of moral development? As morality deals with how things ought to be, not with the way things are, it may be a bit surprising that you put your question in logical terms. It might be better to ask: What is the most comprehensive theory of the existing theories of moral development?  As I see it, a comprehensive theory of development whatever is that which deals with the 4 "Hs" of development: "The what" of development or what develops over time; "the why" of development or what conditions or causes one's development; "the how" of development or the main processes (e.g., psychological, neural, and so forth) which are at issue when one's development occurs; and "the when" of development or at which age a certain development occurs. I think that ´K's theory deals satisfactorily with the 4  "Hs" of one's moral development:  With the what of moral development because, according to K., what develops in one's moral development is one's reasoning about deontic justice. His three levels and six stages of moral development are a case in point. With the why of moral development in that for K cognitive development a la Piaget and social-cognitive a la Selman are two necessary, albeit not sufficient, conditions for one's moral development. With the how of development for, according to K, one's moral development is a constructive process mediated by one's capacity to distinguish, integrate, coordinate, and rank order different perspectives and conflicts of interest, or, in other words, by one's socio-moral perspective and perspective taking. And with the when of moral development because K associated each of his level of moral reasoning (pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional) with certain age.  In K's theory, however, age should be seen as an indicator, not as a criterion, for moral development. Of course, there is more than K's theory in the existing theories of moral development and morality. J. Bentham, J. Piaget, C. Gilligan, J. Gibbs,  E. Turiel, M. .Hoffman, A. Blasi, W, Damon & A. Colby, are but 8 cases in point. I wonder whether any of these approaches to morality and moral development is as comprehensive as K's theory is. There should be other criteria for assessing the importance and relevance of the existing scholarly moral theories. Note, for  example, that moral theories also differ from one another in terms of the moral principle they choose to judge to what extent a certain  action is moral/immoral: Justice (e, g.,  Kohlberg, 1984), care, responsibility and benevolence (e.g., Gilligan, 1982),  social utility (e.g., Bentham,1983),  and  eudaimonia or self-fulfillment (e.g., Den Wyl,1991).

Which psychological model most logically describes morality probably depends most on what you mean by "logical."  If you mean philosophically, then Kohlberg's model is among the best as Kohlberg built on Piaget's models of moral development and child development broadly.  Piaget built on Kant's philosophical work.  If you mean mathematically, then research into distributive justice (how people allocate costs/benefits fairly) might be most logical.  As Orlando describes, there are many more scientific ways to study morality, such as examining behavior (e.g., bystander vs. helper) or emotions (e.g., Gilligan).  Best wishes with your studies Jaime! ~ Kevin

I work mostly with Kohlberg's theory and I find it invaluable in explaining to patient's (even young children) how our perspectives change with cognitive development and exposure. More recent contributions on moral development is found in the work of Andrew Samuels. He wrote a book called "The Political Psyche". Prof Samuels is a Jungian Analyst by training and he understands the dynamics of moral conscience in modern life most adequately in my view. Kind Regards

Jonathan Haidt -  e.g. The Righteous Mind  (Pantheon)

I am totally agree with Orlando's opinion and arguments in favor of Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Although I found that is very useful to combine Kohlberg's emphasis on Justice principle with Ethics of care and responsibility. However there are problems in the way of investigation moral judgement and its developmental phases. It's no easy to do with K's dilemmas and assess someone's level of moral development. It is known that there are some problems to gain reliability of measures in different cultures. I found that in working with Serbian adolescents and adults so we need better instrument for assessing morality.

I also used to use Rest's DIT (Defining Issues Test) but there are still the same problems.

So, dear Jaime, you have to research a lot before you start your study in moral development. I wish you all the best! Regards, Snezana

The question should not be "which theory is most logical" but rather "which theory or theories are most compatible with what we know about children's moral knowledge, motivations, emotions and behavior over the course of development?"  And also "which theory or theories guide us best in learning more about these things?" 

Recent research and theorizing in morality and moral development have expanded the field far beyond Kohlberg's theory, which focused mostly on the development of moral reasoning but paid little attention to emotions or behavior, or to the evolutionary and social bases and functions of morality. 

You might want to read some summaries of the recent history of moral psychology, such as:

Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 65-72;

Sunar, D.  (2009). Suggestions for a new integration in the psychology of morality.  Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 3/4 447–474, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00191.x;

or something lighter like the article in Scientific American,  November 12, 2013, by Gareth Cook, on Paul Bloom's "The Moral Life of Babies". 

Happy reading!

Although this question is not recent, I think many people are likely to consult it. I therefore add the reference to an article published very recently on this subject that will no doubt be of interest to those consulting this discussion. Garrigan, B., Adlam, A. L., & Langdon, P. E. (2018). Moral decision-making and moral development: Toward an integrative framework. Developmental Review.