This essay is to discuss characters in The Crucible through the lens of Kollberg’s moral precepts. It will explain the motivations behind actions using three distinct descriptions of perspectives taken by an individual. The categories are preconventional, conventional and postconventional behavior. Each category explains the variables considered when one decides on how to operate in a given circumstance. By understanding the considerations one takes, we can better understand the character and their motivations. 

In The Crucible, there are numerous examples of characters with preconventional behavior. They act in ways to gain reward or avoid punishment. The first example is Tituba. She lies and confesses to compacting with the Devil when Reverend Parris says he “will take [her] out and whip [her] to [her] death if [she does not] confess.” Tituba determines that the punishment of being a witch was lesser than death. The next character that acts to obtain a reward is Abagail Williams. When John Proctor admits to their affair, he tells the court that “she thinks to dance with me on my wife’s grave.” Abagail is aiming for the execution of Elizabeth Proctor in hopes of obtaining John as a mate, and she’s willing to kill many others to cover it up. The last character to be discussed is Mr. Putnam. He’s a questionable man and Giles Correy knows it. He brings documents to Judge Danforth with proof that Mr. Putnam “prompted [his] daughter to cry witchery upon George Jacobs” so he could buy George’s land. With greed, Mr. Putnam is willing to kill another man and take his land. Given the examples provided, it’s clear that preconventional actions are prevalent within The Crucible. 

There are also many actions that could be considered conventional. This is when someone behaves to fit in with a group and gain acceptance. The first conventional act was committed by Mary Warren. She was telling the truth while challenging Abagail and the girls but eventually concedes and tells Abagail “I’ll never hurt you no more.” Her desire to belong to a group overpowered her will to be honest. Another character that behaved to gain group acceptance is Elizabeth Proctor. To be a good Christian woman, “she had never lied.” The value system of her society prompted such conduct. The final example is found in Judge Danforth when taking his original stance on Salem’s situation. He only asks the accused if they “compacted with the devil,” and hardly considers any other option, regardless of evidence. Due to his desire to adhere to his society’s system of belies, he takes the claim of witches at face value and refuses to alter his stance. It’s clear to see that there are numerous examples of conventional behavior given the examples provided. 

Finally, The Crucible contains examples of postconventional behavior where characters believe in their morals so strongly that punishment, reward and group acceptance become null. The first postconventional character is John Proctor. While attempting to thwart Abagail William’s plan, he admits to having “known her” by committing lechery. He would certainly be ostracized and punished for such a crime, but his will to stand by his morals overcame the other factors. The next character that had confidence in their set of beliefs is Giles Corey. When the court decides to “press him” he simply wishes for “more weight” rather than give up his ally. He knew the law and made sure he would die a good Christian so his family would receive his land. Reverend Hale is the final example. He’s appalled by the court’s corruption and despite the punishment and disapproval of the other court men, he refuses to take part in it. Hale decides to “quit [the] court.” These examples listed clearly illustrate that postconventional are plentiful in The Crucible. 

In conclusion, Kollberg’s moral precepts allow for a deeper understanding of characters and their actions. They help demonstrate the motivations behind the actions of characters who are faced with different situations.