1) “state of moral realism” - In this state, morality is perceived as having a brute objective existence, such that rules are independent of opinion or perspective and criminality is determined by action and irregardless of intention.
“morality of co-operation" - In this state, rules are understood as conventional: man-made and alterable. Immorality is also a matter of intention.
2) Two factors are mentioned: the witnessing of the contingency of rules on custom and opinion, and the cultivation, through inter-personal interaction, of “perspective taking abilities”.
3) Per conventional level – NO – The reason is egocentric: fear of getting caught and punished.
Conventional level – YES and NO – Whatever the decision, the reason will be based on an absolute principle such as “stealing is wrong” or “one must be loyal to one’s family”.
Post conventional level – YES – The reason is not based on a conventional law but on abstract values weighed personally and rationally.
4) It may be that Kohlberg’s categories do not correspond to distinct stages of development, but rather co-exist simultaneously as competing or complementing considerations in a single person’s mind.
5) a. Social conventions have no validity outside a certain tradition, whereas true moral issues are independent of custom or opinion. The example is given of eating with one’s hands (a conventional transgression) as opposed to stealing (a truly moral issue).
