Answer

Hello Aviad.
I quickly read the Wikipedia entry. It seems to me that although this is presented as psychology, there is a categorical mistake there. This is philosophy, not psychology. The scale he describes is not necessarily factual (that is, that this is how children actually develop), but normative (this is how children ought to develop). For example, he assumes that the highest level of morality is obedience to the inner law—the categorical imperative. This is a Kantian view, which I fully share, but it is a claim in philosophy (ethics), not in psychology. Many disagree with it (and Kohlberg—and little me as well—would probably say that they simply did not reach the highest stage of development).
Now to the question. It seems to me that it too contains a fundamental mistake. The obligation to obey the categorical imperative and my inner command does not stem from the fact that my inner voice is better than that of society. Otherwise we are back to consequentialist morality (which is judged by the quality of the results). But that itself belongs to a lower stage on Kohlberg’s scale. Obedience to my conscience (the categorical imperative) is itself a value, not because it leads to the best outcomes. So, for example, a German who did not obey Nazi law has two virtues: 1. He acted autonomously (according to the command of his conscience and not according to the law). 2. He acted in a better way (that is, he reached better moral outcomes; he did not murder Jews). But by the same token, an evil person who does not obey the law of a moral state also possesses virtue number 1. True, he does not possess virtue number 2.
Moral perfection is achieved when you adopt the best possible set of values and obey it autonomously (and not because of social or state law). Therefore, the situations you described cannot be ranked on a linear scale. There are situations in which virtue 1 exists without 2, and vice versa. According to Kant (and little me), how good the condition of society and people is (how comfortable and well-off they are) is not the exclusive measure for evaluating a moral theory. Morality makes the world better, but it is not true that “the good” is the measure of the degree of morality. See the discussion of the categorical imperative in my fourth notebook. This is an excellent example of that distinction. You can also see it in this article:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%95-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/
I hope this was of some help.
In addition, part of my values is also obedience to the law itself. Therefore, if the law requires doing something, even if my conscience opposes it, except in extreme cases I will obey. But the obedience is because my conscience commands me to obey the law, not simply because the law exists. Therefore such an act too is an autonomous act, at Kohlberg’s highest stage. He does not distinguish there between obedience to the law that stems from one of my conscientious values and obedience that results from being dragged along by a social norm. It is important to make that distinction. That is exactly the consideration at the end of your remarks—that disobeying the law will create a worse society. But that itself is a matter of conscience that a person himself should weigh, meaning it is his own decision to obey the law (in order to create a better world—the social contract).