By Elaine Cassel

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied the way children of different ages decided what was right and wrong. He proposed that moral development occurred in three stages, and his theory, unlike that of Piaget, focused on the reasoning behind moral decisions, not on the choices themselves.

Kohlberg called the first stage the preconventional level. Mainly young children (and sometimes, adults)—decide what is right and wrong based on whether or not they will get punished. For instance, a child might think, “I won’t steal candy because then I will get in trouble.” An adult in the preconventional stage might reason, “I won’t drive faster than the speed limit because I might get caught and get a ticket.”

The second stage, or conventional level, is reached by the time children have an understanding of societal laws and law enforcement and finds children determining the right and wrong course of action based upon the concept of laws, rules, or regulations. A child in the conventional stage might say, “I won’t steal candy because it’s against the law.” And an adult in the conventional stage might reason, “ I won’t drive faster than the speed limit because the speed limit is the law.” Mainly, most children and adults reach and operate at the conventional level: obeying the laws of society.

In Kohlberg’s third stage, the postconventional level, the decision about what is right or wrong is based on a concept greater than the law, usually by doing what one thinks is right according to a higher law, or in order to help someone in need. This stage is not one that is achieved in childhood, though by adolescence, some persons may reason at that level.

For instance, an 18-year-old who has joined the Army Reserve might later refuse to go to war because he or she has come to believe that any killing—even for patriotic reasons—is wrong. However, a person at this stage will also be fully willing to accept the punishment that society hands down for people who violate its law. As such, an Army reservist who refuses to go to war may ask for conscientious objector (CO) status. If denied, the reservist would accept what would surely be a harsh military punishment. This individual would not run away to escape military service; if he or she did, they would be thinking and acting at the preconventional level.

The movie John Q, directed by Nick Cassavetes and staring Denzel Washington, is about a man who makes a decision about the right thing to do, even though it will—and does—violate many serious laws.

John Q is a blue-collar worker at an industrial plant whose hours have recently been cut back. As the movie opens, his wife, a waitress, loses her car when it is repossessed. Though their life appears to be financially unstable, one thing is clear early on; they are devoted to their son, an only child. Early in the movie, this cherished boy collapses while running the bases at a baseball game. The diagnosis: an enlarged heart, requiring a heart transplant.

Following the diagnosis, John Q finds out that his insurance benefits are not what he thought they were and that a transplant costs a quarter of a million dollars. And the hard-nosed hospital administrator, played by Anne Heche, is not willing to donate the hospital’s services though the surgeon, played by James Woods, says he will waive his fee.

Although John Q manages to raise tens of thousands of dollars through donations and selling off almost everything his family owned, he falls far short of the 25% down payment the hospital demands before it will put the boy on the waiting list for a transplant. As his son’s death becomes imminent, John Q takes the drastic step of taking over the hospital and holding doctors, nurses, and patients hostage at gunpoint. A crafty, sympathetic police negotiator, played by Robert Duvall, takes pity on John Q and manages to keep him talking while holding off the police chief—for a time, at least.

In order to avoid spoiling the movie for you, the rest of the plot and the ending will remain a secret—until you see it. But when you do see the movie, you will see a demonstration of a man who dares to break very serious laws, who is charged with serious crimes and who may—or may not—pay dearly for his crimes. But he does them all to save his son.

Is this a worthwhile motive? Most viewers will think so. But even if you don’t agree with what John Q did, you will see Kohlberg’s postconventional stage of moral reasoning in action, down to John Q’s resignation to accept whatever punishment a judge deems appropriate. It is, he is sure, the right thing to do.

Elaine Cassel, Marymount University and Lord Fairfax Community College