Kholberg’s three moral precepts will help us better understand the ideology of each character seen within the crucible, and how certain actions may be justified under this theory. This essay will examine how Kohlberg’s moral precepts provide explanations for the character’s actions and motivations in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. These three ideologies include preconventional, conventional, and postconventional thinking. Although many characters exhibit personalities which display more than one of these ideologies, this essay will focus on specific examples and how they weave themselves into this theory. 

The first example of Kholberg’s moral precepts seen within the crucible is the idea of preconventional thinking. Preconventional characters think and act in a way where they are motivated by the avoidance of punishments and obtainment of rewards in a given situation. The first example of a preconventional character seen within the crucible includes John Proctor. John Proctor demonstrates his preconventional ideology when he states that he will “think on it” when confronted by Elizabeth and told to confess. He acts indifferently and avoids directly answering the question as to deflect his involvement with the witch hunt, and more importantly to not be labeled as a lecher. Clearly, he acts in a way to avoid punishment with little to no regard to his actions and the consequences which may domino from him not confessing. Another example of a character who acts for punishment and reward is Thomas Danforth. Danforth illustrates this when he interrogates John Proctor and says that if he’s lying, he will “not accept it”. This simple statement puts Proctor in an unwinnable situation as his confession of being a witch is not factual. Moreover, If Proctor tells the truth, he can not give Danforth what he desires. Danforth, fully aware of the circumstances, purposefully says this to hold power over John Proctor, in turn, keeping the image of the church a positive one. This proves he is preconventional as he is willing to ruin the lives of the citizens for the reward of power. The final individual who portrays this ideology is Tituba. Tituba exemplifies this when she exclaims “God Protect Tituba!” as she was being interrogated and threatened by the court for being a witch. She falsely admits to being in alliance with the devil in avoidance of being whipped, hanged, and killed. This clearly shows that she is a preconventional character as she is acting in a way to avoid a punishment. Finally, based on the examples provided above it is clear that there are many types of preconventional characters throughout the crucible
 

Another one of Kohlberg’s moral precepts includes the ideology of conventional individuals. Conventional characters behave in a way to fit within a group, and base their own decisions based on the opinions of others. The first example of a conventional character seen within the crucible would include Anne Putnam. Anne Putnam illustrates her conventional ideology when she says to Hale “Who else may tell us who murdered my babies” when referencing Tituba. Mrs. Putnam is seen to put the blame of her baby’s death not on herself, but the entire idea of witches. This takes the blame of the repeated deaths of her babies off her and onto someone else. This action would lead to her being more accepted by the community as she would no longer be the woman with seven miscarried babies, and instead be the lady with seven babies who died due to witches. The next individual who acts on their actions and decisions based on the opinions of others would be Elizibeth Proctor. This is exemplified when John Proctor says “[Elizabeth Proctor] will never lie!” when speaking to Thomas Danforth. It is shown that Mrs. Proctor has built a reputation for never lying. Elizabeth Proctor had decided to maintain her image by being the good christian girl that was expected at that time. Through this, we can see that Mrs. Proctor had decided to do this to be in the good light of everyone in that village, cementing the idea that she bases her actions off of other individuals. The final example of an individual who expresses this ideology is Mary Warren. Mary Warren was seen to faint in the courthouse, and when later questioned on how she did it she states that she “cannot tell how” and that she was only able to do it because she heard “the other girls screaming”. The connotation of this statement indicates that she only pretended to faint so as to not be alienated from her group of friends. If she was the only individual to not be laid on the floor pretending to be affected by the witches, she would be seen as strange. Due to this, she goes along with this act, fainting only due to the societal pressure around her. Finally, based on the examples provided above, it is clear to see that there are many examples of conventional characters within the crucible. 

The last theory of Kholbergs moral precepts is the idea of post-conventional characters. Individuals with a post conventional ideology behave in a way true to themselves, disregarding the opinions and views of other people, instead they act according to what they believe is morally correct. The first example of a post conventional character is Mary Warren. This is illustrated when she states that she “cannot lie no more” about the presence of witches around her. Despite her being seen to go against the truth earlier and deciding to faint with her group, she later decides to leave Abigail and the girls behind after feeling a strong sense of moral conviction of the falsehoods that she had stated. It is shown that Mary Warren is now acting based on her own moral compass and not letting the opinions of others affect her. Another character who acts only according to their own moral compass is John Proctor. He demonstrates this when he exclaims that he’d rather “cut [his] hand off before [he] ever touch Abigail again”. It is shown that John has distanced himself from Abigail, deciding to stay loyal to his wife. Despite making the mistake of first associating with Abigail to begin with, he had come to the conclusion on his own that this affair was never a good idea. Subsequently, he had decided to cut ties with Abigail on his own free will without the pressure of others weighing down on him. The final example of an individual with this ideology is Elizibeth Proctor. She exemplifies this when she states that John Proctor had “his good will” and that “god forbid [her] if [she] took it”. The implications of this statement are major. This is due to the fact that if she does not say that he is lying, John Proctor will be killed, leaving the blame of his death on Elizebeth Proctor as she could have stopped his tirade. Despite this, she chooses not to say anything, giving John what he wants. She acts on her own moral compass by allowing John to go out on his own terms despite the fact that the guilt of his death will weigh on her for the rest of her life. Finally, based on the example provided above, there are many examples of post-conventional characters throughout the crucible.

In conclusion, Kohlberg’s moral precepts provide an eloquent explanation for the decisions of the characters within the crucible and the reasons behind their peculiar actions. Post-conventional characters behave in a way which stay true to the personality that they have built over their lives, not being swayed by the opinions of others. In contrast, conventional characters base their decisions on the opinions of others as not to be alienated from a certain group. Lastly, pre-conventional characters act in a way solely for punishment and reward, disregarding the opinions of groups, and the opinions of themselves. Through the examples provided within this essay, it is clear to see that Kholberg’s three moral precepts provide an effective and reasonable explanation to the actions of each character within the Crucible.