This paper investigates whether large language models demonstrate genuine moral reasoning capabilities or merely produce superficially convincing reasoning-like outputs. The study analyzes responses from 13 different LLMs across six classical moral dilemmas using Kohlberg's stages of moral development as an evaluation framework. Through an LLM-as-judge scoring pipeline validated across three judge models, over 600 responses were classified and analyzed. The research reveals a significant finding that LLM responses predominantly exhibit post-conventional reasoning patterns (Stages 5-6), which contradicts typical human developmental trajectories where such reasoning emerges later in moral development. This inversion suggests that alignment training may produce outputs that mimic advanced moral reasoning without the underlying developmental progression characteristic of human moral cognition.