In Kohlberg's empirical studies of individuals throughout their life Kohlberg observed that some had apparently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not yet been fully integrated into the personality.  In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4½ or 4+, a transition from stage four to stage five, that shared characteristics of both.  In this stage the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning; culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to viewing society itself as culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two, as the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their own as being relatively and morally wrong.  Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.  
Next I would like to mention is tolerance. It is a good value to have because no matter what are your personal views and attitudes you are a part of a society, and you have to learn how to cohabitate with the members of that society. Regardless of his or her status in society a person has certain duties towards the other people and one of them I think is a wiliness to help other people whenever the help is needed. For this to be done we have to learn how to understand the behavior and motives of other people even if their behavior appears as totally alien and unacceptable to you. Developing a great amount of tolerance for people you associate with is always imperative and only when you are initially tolerant to people their behavior will become more clear to you and if they need your help you will be able to help them, so eventually your tolerance will be gratified. For me both as person and a citizen of my nation loyalty value is also vitally important. In a narrow sense loyalty can be best viewed as how you treat your friends. Sometimes all of us hear stories when friends betray each other for the sake of money, power, women, etc. For me such behavior is completely unthinkable. When you betray someone who trusted you it is like betraying a part of yourself. But how can you call a person who betrayed his or her culture or nation? Such things are measured on a large scale now, but the essence is the same: the lack of loyalty.
Most people in fact have more than one moral "voice" and shift among them depending on the situation. In one context, a person may respond out of empathy and place care for one person over concern for social rules. In a different context, that same person might instead insist on following social rules for the good of society, even though someone may suffer because of it. People also show a lack of consistent morality by sometimes choosing to act in a way that they know is not moral, while continuing to consider themselves "moral" people. This discrepancy between moral judgment (perceiving an act as morally right or wrong) and moral choice (deciding whether to act in the morally "right" way) can be explained in a number of ways, any one of which may be true in a given situation: