The purpose of the essay is to discuss the play, The Crucible. In particular, what will be discussed is characters in The Crucible that behave in a confusing manner. This behavior can best be described and understood by using Kohlberg’s moral precepts for explanation. Specifically, Kohlberg has three distinct descriptions of perspectives that are taken by individuals that motivate them to behave in certain ways. The three categories are pre-conventional behavior, conventional behavior, and post conventional behavior. All three categories are factors that we consider when individuals decide to act in any given situation. If we understand the consideration and action, we will be able to achieve a better understanding for the character. 

There are many examples of pre-conventional characters in The Crucible. Pre-conventional characters behave in a certain way to obtain reward and avoid punishment. The first character that is pre-conventional is Tituba. She demonstrates this behavior when her slave master, Reverend Paris, threatens to “whip [her] to [her] death” if she doesn’t confess to being in league with the devil. Although Tituba did not commit any of the crimes stated, she confesses in order to avoid punishment. Therefore, her lie is able to save her life. The next character to behave in a way to avoid punishment is Betty Paris. Betty illustrates this when Abigail threatens to “beat” her if she does not wake up. Because of Betty’s fear of getting caught in trouble, she feigns illness and lies despite those acts being against her religion. She goes as far as she stays silent even when the town believes there is witchcraft. The final example is Reverend Paris. He displays that he is pre-conventional when he begs Danforth to “postpone” the hangings. Paris goal is to stop the hangings to prevent outrage in the town. Despite the fact Paris was adamant about hanging the people in the beginning, he changes his stance on the matter to avoid the town killing him. From the examples provided, it is evident that many characters in The Crucible behave in a way to obtain reward and avoid punishment. 

There are many examples of conventional characters in The Crucible. Conventional behaviour is when you behave in a way that suggests you want group acceptance and to fit into that group. The first conventional character to be discussed is Mary Warren. This is demonstrated when she tells John Proctor that she does not “go” his “way” anymore. Mary Warren’s sudden change in behavior from honesty to deceit is due to her desire for acceptance from Abigail and the girls. She returns to Abigail to feel secure in the group and to not be ostracized by them. The next character who illustrates their desire to fit into our group would be John Proctor. This is displayed when he tells his wife that he “will think” about telling the town about his lechery. Although he is a Christian man, he would rather lie about his lechery in fear of judgement from the town. By withholding the information, he can maintain his status and fit into the town. Finally, there are the girls. They exemplify their conventional behaviour when they are “pretending” to be controlled by Mary Warren. The girls follow Abigail’s lead in copying her as they want to remain in the group and not be cast aside like Mary Warren. They find safety within the group and continue their lying even if others will die because of it. In conclusion, it is evident that many characters display their desire to fit within a group and gain their acceptance. 

There are many post conventional characters in The Crucible. Post conventional characters internalize a source of values and ethics. Those beliefs are not influenced by reward, punishment, or group acceptance. The first post conventional character to discuss is John Proctor. His behaviour is demonstrated when he tells the court that he has “known” Abigail Williams. John Proctor confesses to lechery despite the fact that he would be judged for committing a serious sin. He sets aside his reputation in order to do the right thing and attempt to prevent others from dying. The next character that behaves in a way to reflect their values but is not affected by reward, punishment, or group acceptance is John Hale. This is seen when he decides to “quit [the] court.” John Hale’s decision to quit his job would affect his entire livelihood. However, his morality pushes him to make that decision as he believes the court to be unjust. Finally, the last character to discuss is Giles Corey. Giles Corey refuses to give Danforth the “name” of Mr. X. Giving Danforth the name would save his life, but he refuses as he does not want to endanger Mr. X’s life. Giles Corey does not gain any reward or avoid punishment for his selfless act. Overall, it is evident that many characters have internalized their value system and are not influenced by others’ punishment or reward. 

In conclusion, Kohlberg’s moral preceps have been a valuable tool in allowing the reader to achieve a better understanding of the characters in The Crucible. It has also demonstrated why individuals behave the way they do when faced with certain situations. In The Crucible, characters present themselves as pre-conventional, conventional, and post conventional. They behave in ways to obtain reward and avoid punishment, to fit into a group and gain their acceptance, or to internalize their value system regardless of reward, punishment, or group acceptance. It is evident that with the example provided above that the characters in The Crucible are a quintessential illustration of Kohlberg’s moral preceps.