• ETHICAL THEORIES:
– KOHLBERGS THEORY
– GILLIGANS THEORY
KOHLBERGS THEORY
• Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral
development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further.
• He used Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving
moral dilemmas.
•
In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between
the rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual
who is being unfairly treated.
Heinz Dilemma
• One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories concerns a man called
Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.
• Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a
new drug might save her. The drug had been discovered by a local chemist,
and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the chemist was charging
ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than
the Heinz could afford.
• Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and
friends. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he
could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.
• The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going
to make money from it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so
later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the drug.
Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:
• 1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
• 2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
• 3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
• 4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
• By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions,
Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew
older.
• The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years,
•
58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years
(Kohlberg, 1984).
• Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What
Kohlberg was mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the
action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision. He found that
these reasons tended to change as the children got older.
• Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level has two substages.
• People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new
stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone
achieves all the stages.
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
• 1. Obedience and punishment orientation
• 2. Self-interest orientation
( What's in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
•
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity( The good boy/good girl
attitude)
•
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation( Law and order
morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
• 5. Social contract orientation
• 6. Universal ethical principles( Principled conscience)
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
• At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over
nine), we don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is
shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or
breaking their rules.
• Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical
consequences of actions.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is
good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must
have done wrong.
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize
that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities.
Different individuals have different viewpoints.
Eg: Example: It would be bad for me to take my friend's toy because the
teacher will punish me.
Example: If Katy is nice to me, I'll be nice to her, but if she is mean to me, I
won't feel bad about being mean too.
Level 2 - Conventional morality
• At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to
internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.
• Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the
norms of the group to which the person belongs.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good
in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers
relate to the approval of others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes
aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules
in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.
Eg: Example: I better not drink and drive because my friends will
think less of me and I, in turn, will think less of myself.
Example: I am personally against the war, but would never publicly
protest it on campus without the administration's permission.
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality
• Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral
reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.
• According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most
people get.
• Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for
stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality).
• That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them
and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.
• • Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual
becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest
number, there are times when they will work against the interest of
particular individuals.
• The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the
protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.
• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their
own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The
principles apply to everyone.
• E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act
to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society
in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or
imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.
Eg: Example: It can't be right that huge corporations sometimes pay
no taxes; that law needs to be changed, so that the burden of taxes falls
more equally on everyone's shoulders.
Example: I refuse to obey a law which treats a large portion of the
population as second-class citizens.
Problems with Kohlberg's Methods
The dilemmas are artificial (i.e., they lack ecological validity)
• Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980).
• For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma asking subjects
whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife.
• However, Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16.
• They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation
remotely like the one in the story.
• How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?
2. The sample is biased
• According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an
all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s
androcentric).
• Mens' morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while
womens' is based on principles of compassion and care.
• Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the
significant gender debate still present in psychology, which when ignored,
can have a large impact on the results obtained through psychological
research.
3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e., they are not real)
• In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real
consequences – and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would
subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We
just don’t know.
• The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s
response to an artificial dilemma brings a question to the validity of the
results obtained through this research.
• People may respond very differently to real life situations that they find
themselves in than they do with an artificial dilemma presented to them in
the comfort of a research environment.
4. Poor research design
• The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this
theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow
the same sequence of stage progression.
• His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of
different ages to see what level of moral development they were at.
• A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages
would have been to carry out longitudinal research on the same children.
• Problems with Kohlberg's Theory
1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?
• Kohlberg claims that there are, but the evidence does not always support
this conclusion. For example, a person who justified a decision on the basis
of principled reasoning in one situation (post-conventional morality stage 5
or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4)
with another story.
• In practice, it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more
upon the situation than upon general rules.
• The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak,
and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in
the superiourity of American values over those of other cultures and
societies.
• 2. Does moral judgment match moral behaviour?
• Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence
between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do) but he does
suggest that the two are linked.
• 3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?
• This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the
principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore, Kohlberg
claims that the moral reasoning of males has been often in advance of that
of females.
• Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice
girl orientation) whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law
and Order orientation).
• In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s
theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and nonviolence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.
• Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that
women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an
‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental
assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.
• In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s
theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love, and nonviolence, which is associated with the socialization of girls.
• Gilligan concluded that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that
women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an
‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental
assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.
GILLIGANS THEORY
• Carol Gilligan was born on November 28, 1936, in New York City. She has
received her doctorate degree in social psychology from Harvard
University in 1964 and began teaching at Harvard in 1967.
• Then in 1970 she became a research assistant for the great theorist of moral
development, Lawrence Kohlberg.
• Eventually Gilligan became independent and began to criticize some of
Kohlberg' s work. Her opinions were presented in her famous book, " In a
different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women ' s Development "
which was published in 1982.
• She felt that Kohlberg only studied " privileged, white men and boys. "
Gilligan said that this caused a biased opinion against women.
• She felt that , in Kohlberg ' s stage theory of moral development, the male
view of individual rights and rules was considered a higher stage than
women's point of view of development in terms of its caring effect on
human relationships. “
•
Gilligan ' s goal is was to prove that women are not moral midgets.
• Her theory is divided into three stages of moral development beginning
from " selfish , to social or conventional morality , and finally to post
conventional or principled morality . “
•
Women must learn to deal to their own interests and to the interests of
others .
• She thinks that women hesitate to judge because they see the complexities
of relationships.
• Thus Gilligan produces her own stage theory of moral development for
women. Like Kohlberg's, it has three major divisions: preconvention,
conventional, and post conventional. But for Gilligan, the transitions
between the stages are fuelled by changes in the sense of self rather than in
changes in cognitive capability.
• Hence she proposed a theory which has the same three stages of Kohlberg
but with different stages of moral development. Let us understand the
stages in detail.
•
Though the names of the stages are the same, the stages differ in this
method. The moral development in Gilligan’s theory are based on prosocial behaviors such as Altruism, caring and helping and the traits such as
honesty, fairness and respect.
Pre Conventional
-Person only cares for themselves in order to ensure survival
-This is how everyone is as children
In this transitional phase, the person 's attitude is considered selfish, and the
person sees the connection between themselves and others.
Conventional
-Responsibility
-More care shown for other people.
-Gilligan says this is shown in the role of Mother & Wife
-Situation sometimes carries on to ignoring needs of self.
• In this transitional phase, tensions between responsibility of caring for
others and caring for self are faced.
Post Conventional
-Acceptance of the principle of care for self and others is shown.
-Some people never reach this level.
According to the Carol Gilligan’s theory of moral development, changes occur
due to the change of self rather than the critical thinking. It was stated that the
post-conventional level of Kohlberg is not attained by women. But Carol
Gilligan researched and found that the post-conventional level of thinking is not
being easy for women to go through because they care for the relationships.
Levels of Thinking
• Carol Gilligan states that the post-conventional level of moral thinking can
be dealt based on the two types of thinking. Gilligan’s theory is based on
the two main ideas, the care-based morality (usually found in women) and
the justice-based morality (usually found in men).
Care-based Morality
• Care-based morality is the kind of thinking found in women. This is based
on the following principles.
• More emphasis is given to inter-connected relationships and universality.
• Acting justly focuses on avoidance of violence.
• Women with this are usually interested in helping others.
• More common in girls because of their connections to their mothers.
• Because girls remain connected to their mothers, they are less inclined to
worry about issues of fairness.
Justice-based Morality
• Justice-based morality is the kind of thinking found in men. This is based
on the following principles.
• They view the world as being composed of autonomous individuals who
interact with one another.
• Acting justly means avoiding inequality.
• Individuals with this are usually interested in protecting individuality.
• Thought to be more common among boys because of their need to
differentiate between themselves and their mothers.
• Because they are separated from their mothers, boys become more
concerned with the concept of inequality.
• The Carol Gilligan’s theory can be better understood if explained with an
example.
Example of Gilligan’s Theory
• In order to understand Gilligan’s theory, a popular example is usually
considered.
• A group of moles give shelter to a porcupine. But they are being
continuously stabbed by the porcupine’s quills.
•
Now, what should they do?
• The Pre-conventional level of thinking states that to think for the good of
oneself, either the moles or the porcupine only can live there. The other has
to leave the place.
• According to the Conventional level of thinking, which brings a transition,
from self to the good of others and which might even lead to sacrifice,
either the moles or the porcupine has to sacrifice and again this leads to a
stage where only moles or the porcupine can live in the burrow.
• According to the Post-conventional level of thinking, which states that the
good of both the parties has to be considered, both the moles and the
porcupine come to an agreement that both will have separate places in the
same burrow, where they limit to behave themselves and will not cause any
trouble to other. This helps both of them to live in the same place with
peace.
The researchers found that the solution to this scenario is different with different
individuals; gender also plays an important role. The thinkers were observed
viewing the problem in two different perspectives, the care-based and the justicebased.
• In a Justice-based perspective, the solution to the problem is viewed as a
conflict between two individual groups. Only one of them can have the
property. Either moles or the porcupine will get the place in the burrow.
Hence the solution to the dilemma, is not a resolution of the conflict, it is a
verdict.
• In a Care-based perspective, the approach differs. The problem is viewed
as a difficult situation faced by both the parties together, rather than a fight
between both of them. Hence the solution is sought in a way around the
problem or to remove the problem completely. The solution may sound
compromising but not damaging. The relationship will still be the same,
after the resolution.
• Researchers found that Justice-based perspective is pre-dominant among
males while Care-based prospective is among females.
Summary of difference
(1) Kohlberg’s model is male centric, and does not give complete
picture of the process of moral development of human beings.
Gilligan challenged this and constitutes separate model of
women.
(2)
Kohlberg’s
theory
is
based
upon
rationality,
duty,
impartiality, and universally accepted abstract principle of
justice. Gilligan’s model is based upon female characteristics of
care and relationship.
(3) Women as per Kohlberg’s model are inferior to men so long
as moral development is concerned. Gilligan made this
impression null & void by incorporating in her model female
traits of care and love.