Chiara Poato

        To gain a full understanding of The Crucible, its characters, and their motivations, one can refer to Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Kohlberg identifies three levels of moral reasoning that explain why individuals behave in certain ways, which include pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional behavior. This essay will define each of these levels and discuss them in detail. Then, specific characters from the play will be analyzed as examples of each category. Through this analysis, this essay will explore and illustrate how different moral viewpoints influence the actions and decisions of various characters from The Crucible.

      There are numerous examples of pre-conventional characters in The Crucible. These characters are guided by personal gain and avoiding punishment rather than moral principles of society. The first pre-conventional character to be discussed is Abigail Williams, who manipulates others to protect herself and pursue her desires. Her declaration, “You loved me, John Proctor, and whatever sin it is, you love me yet!” reveals her selfish fixation on Proctor, despite him being married, and her willingness to go above and beyond to claim him for herself. Abigail’s lies throughout the story stem from her intense desire for control, similarly to Thomas Putnam, who is another pre-conventional character found within the story. Thomas Putnam acts purely out of greed and personal advantage rather than justice, as he accuses his innocent neighbors of witchcraft so that once they are executed, he can purchase their land for a cheap price. This is hinted through Giles Corey’s statement, “This man is killing his neighbors for their land!” which proves his prioritization for wealth and status over human life. Lastly, Reverend Parris, another pre-conventional character in The Crucible, embodies pre-conventional morality through his constant concern of his own reputation and well-being. When he anxiously exclaims “There is danger in it for me,” it clearly demonstrates his concern to address the witchcraft accusations because he fears that the scandal will ruin his position as minister. This leads him to support the witch trials and align himself with the court as innocent people suffer so that he doesn’t lose his status. Together, these characters distinctly illustrate how self-preservation, desire, and greed are the leading causes of chaos in Salem.

      Within The Crucible, there is a plentiful number of conventional characters to be explored. Characters who display conventional behavior behave in a way that allows them to be accepted by a group and fit into society, even when it is morally questionable. The first conventional character to be considered is Deputy Governor Danforth, who perfectly embodies this characteristic through his faith in the court’s authority, through his declaration “A person is either with this court, or he must be counted against it, there be no road between.” Danforth believes that obedience to the court is the highest form of righteousness, and it is equivalent to loyalty to God. This is a clear example of Kohlberg’s conventional level of moral reasoning, where morality is defined by obeying social rules and the approval of authority figures. Danforth strictly believes in maintaining social order and structure in court rather than uncovering truth to free those who are innocent from execution. Reverend Hale is another conventional character to be analyzed, as he displays conventional behavior especially earlier in the story. His statement, “We cannot look to superstition in this. The devil is precise; the marks of his presence are definite as stone.” shows that Hale deeply believes that following established procedures condemned by the court and church is the best way he can obey his faith and serve God, rather than listening to his internal moral judgement despite innocent citizens being killed. However, later in the story, Hale’s confidence in these systems begins to collapse, as he begins to see the flaws in the justice system and later develops a post-conventional mindset. Mary Warren is the last conventional character of The Crucible that will be discussed. Her behavior is solely fear driven and concern for societal acceptance, which is seen through her exclamation, “I cannot, they’ll turn on me.”. This displays Mary’s concern of telling the truth in court because she knows she would be disobeying Abigail Williams, who was one of the girls accusing innocent people of witchcraft. Overwhelmed by fear, she then accuses John Proctor of working with the Devil instead, which illustrates her internal conflicts of lacking courage and her uttermost need for societal acceptance.

      There are many examples of post-conventional characters found in The Crucible. A post conventional individual is one who is not influenced by punishment, reward, or group acceptance, but purely by their internalized set of values and morals. The first post-conventional character to be analyzed is John Proctor, who perfectly meets the characteristics of Kohlberg’s theory of conventional behavior. When he declares, “A man may think God sleeps, but God sees everything, I know it now,” Proctor recognizes that true morality comes from within, not from the court or opinions of others, and he takes accountability for his sins. As he has been struggling with deep guilt over his affair with Abigail Williams and the damage it caused to his marriage with Elizabeth Proctor, he confesses that he once tried to hide his sin, hoping it could stay buried. He compares his situation to the innocent killings of the court, stating that nothing escapes moral judgement, and the truth will eventually be uncovered. His sense of morality comes from his own conscience and not fear of punishment. The second post-conventional character to be explored is Giles Corey. Through his courage and defiance of authority, he refuses to reveal the name of a witness who knew about Thomas Putnam, who told Abigail to accuse their neighbors of witchcraft in favor of their land. He sacrifices his own life for justice and integrity and refuses to let the court claim his land or destroy an innocent life. He then is condemned to death, and his final words, “More weight,” symbolize his strength and his deep sense of morality. He strongly refuses to surrender to a corrupt system, and he dies as a martyr to protect an innocent life. His death deeply shook Salem and was a turning point for the witch trials as it further exposed the cruelty and lies hidden beneath the system of the court. The last character to be discussed is Elizabeth Proctor, who reaches a post-conventional understanding of morality when she recognizes her husband’s need for redemption and forgiveness. When she says, “He have his goodness now, God forbid I take it from him,” she acknowledges that John’s moral choice to die with honesty than confessing to witchcraft to save himself is more important. She believes that dying with integrity is more meaningful than living with shame, so she compromises his survival by refusing to convince him to lie to save his life. Her statement gives John’s death meaning and highlights the central message of the play – that true goodness and redemption come from staying true to one’s values, even when it demands great sacrifice.

     In conclusion, The Crucible powerfully displays the stages of moral development through its wide range of characters which each clearly demonstrate a level of Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory, including pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional behavior. Characters who are guided by personal gain and avoidance of punishment have been analyzed, along with characters who are guided by societal acceptance, and characters who are guided by their internalized beliefs and values. However, throughout all these contrasting moral stages, Arthur Miller exposes the flaws of authority and reinforces the primary message of this story – that true righteousness comes from personal integrity and selflessness, not from the approval of society.