Moral Development in Psychology - Essay Example

Moral Development Introduction Moral development is a critical topic in psychology, education and many more disciplines. Many psychologists have come up with theories to explain various concepts of moral development. Two psychologists who are famous for the theories they have advanced on moral development are; Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan. Kohlberg modified an earlier theory by psychologist Jean Piaget by expounding on it to form a theory that illustrates the development of moral reasoning. Gilligan on the other hand, advanced a theory that was an improvement in Kohlberg’s work, but her focus was on moral development in girls (Duska & Whelan 25). Kohlberg’s theory This theory was based on research and interviews that Kohlberg conducted with many groups of privileged young children. The children were presented with various dilemmas, and each child’s reasoning behind the judgment made in response to the dilemma was analyzed (Duska & Whelan 56). From responses that the children gave, Kohlberg managed to classify responses into 3 stages of reasoning. These stages are; pre-conventional morality, conventional morality and post conventional morality. The stages are further classified into sub-stages, two in each case. This forms the basis for the theory of Kohlberg on moral development. The stage of Pre-conventional Morality is between birth and 9 years comprises of obedience and individualism. By young children being obedient to rules and ideas, it enables them to avoid punishment. The children also are individualistic by only caring about themselves. They make judgment basing their reasoning on factors that favor their individual needs (Duska & Whelan 58). The stage of Conventional Morality is between 9 and 20 years. In this stage, individuals are focused on living according to social expectations and roles, and also maintaining law and order (Duska & Whelan 62). The stage of Post-conventional Morality comes at an age of over 20 years or maybe never. Here, people tend to account for different values and opinions of others. It also inculcates principles of abstract reasoning and ethical principles of the society. As much as people conflict with laws and set rules, they tend to follow these principles. Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory and the Defense Just like with other theories, Kohlberg’s theory of reasoning in moral development has been faced with criticisms from other psychologists. For one, there is the assertion that Kohlberg’s theory discusses about moral thinking ignoring the fact that moral reasoning does not necessarily lead to moral behavior. This assertion is misplaced because moral thinking always leads to moral deeds. We all perform deeds based on our thinking. It is, therefore, rare to find an individual who thinks wickedly doing well to others. Because of this, Kohlberg’s theory is accurate. Other critics have highlighted that Kohlberg’s theory overemphasizes on justice when making moral decisions and choices. They argue that this may be inaccurate because other factors like compassion and other interpersonal feelings may play a part in making moral decisions and reasoning. Therefore, this shows that justice is not the only aspect of moral reasoning that should be considered. However, this assertion is also not true. All individuals who know and understand dictates of the law make decisions based on justice. As much as other factors come into play, Justice is the greatest factor to consider when making decisions because an individual may be willing to do something but because it does not conform to justice, the individual may abandon the idea. Furthermore, many critics argue that Kohlberg’s theory overemphasizes on western philosophy. This makes the theory inaccurate because Eastern cultures may have different outlooks and perceptions on moral reasoning that Kohlberg’s theory does not discuss at all. Kohlberg is right in the use of western philosophy because, one always bases a theory on the surrounding conditions. Kohlberg studies the western people and, therefore, his theory would best be understood from the perspective of the western philosophy. Regardless of this fact, theories always apply universally. Even though Kohlberg has used the western philosophy, the ideas advanced in the theory can apply even to eastern cultures. The difference in the east and the west is trace. It is only the geographical locations. The outlooks and perceptions of both of these regions are the same. Carol Gilligan was one of the earliest psychologists to critique Kohlberg’s work. Her assertion was that Kohlberg’s theory is not representative of all people in the world because the interviewees were only white males of the western cultures. Gilligan also argues that the theory advanced by Kohlberg does not have gender balance because the views of males are given a better weight as compared to the views of females. It is because of these major critiques that Gilligan decided to advance her own theory on moral development of females. However, Gilligan may not be true in her assertions. For one Kohlberg uses males of the west due to their availability. Most females stay with their mothers for a long time, a factor that makes their reasoning misguided. Males on the other hand leave their homes early in their development. They learn to think and act independently; hence much of their reasoning is accurate. Kohlberg was also using western males due to their availability. They represent all males in the world. When Gilligan asserts that the theory of Kohlberg lacks gender balance, this can only be treated with a pinch of salt. Gilligan is simply trying to air her feminist views in an otherwise male dominated society. Feminists view most issues originating from men as being gender insensitive even though this is not the case. Gilligan is no exception. Carol Gilligan’s theory Gilligan’s theory is a critique of Kohlberg’s theory. Her theory focuses on sex differences in moral differences. It incorporates a feminist approach in moral development. She argues that men tend to organize social relationships in a form of hierarchy while still subscribing to rights of morality. On the other hand, she illustrates the fact that females value care and a sense of responsibility to other people. Furthermore, females value sensitivity and a sense of personal connectedness, a virtue that differentiates them to males during the stage of moral development.. Gilligan has theorized that, the inequality and prejudice that women face in society is of less an issue than the one faced by men because, they break from their mothers after a longer time span as compared to the males. Males on the other hand exhibit independence much earlier by asserting their level of masculinity. Her theory has three levels in the discussion of her research topic. Level one regards the survival of the self in that it describes an individual on transit from a selfish being to a responsible being. The second level according to Gilligan describes a situation whereby the individual in question attempts to find a favorable place in the structure of a society. The final level describes a situation whereby the woman in question attempts to find truth in understanding about her. The woman also understands the implications of her own consequences, a factor which would make her act carefully in life (Duska & Whelan 150). Critiques of Gilligan’s Theory and the Defense There have been some criticisms of Gilligan’s theory just like Kohlberg’s theory. One such criticism is by Christina Hoff Sommers, a PhD holder. She argues that Gilligan does not have any data whatsoever in her research. This is because, to Sommers, the data Gilligan uses to advance her theory is unreliable, less effective and the samples used were too small. This assertion may not be true because Gilligan uses many correspondents who had taken part in the Vietnam War. We expect her sampling to be out of a big group of women and girls. Furthermore, Gilligan criticized Kohlberg for interviewing people who did not represent the majority of people in the world, both males and females. From this critique, we expect Gilligan to conduct a research that does not contradict her own critique of Kohlberg’s work. Sommers’ critique is, therefore, not accurate. She may be basing her claims out of rumors and misplaced knowledge. Other critics also argue that Gilligan is promoting anti-male campaigns in her theory. This they say hurts some men and women. This may be true, but the truth is Gilligan is being candid about the challenges women and girls face in society. It is evident that Kohlberg’s theory addresses mostly males while ignoring the plight of females. It is for this reason that Gilligan addresses the issue, because she feels that Kohlberg’s theory did not address the plight of women and girls. To, therefore, claim that Gilligan’s theory is an anti-gender article is wrong because, the article itself tackles gender imbalance. The theory uplifts the views of women as the same as those of men, a factor that has made it better than Kohlberg’s theory, gender-wise speaking. Other critics also argue that the theory Of Gilligan is unfounded. This is because many research studied have determined the fact that men and women have no much difference in the degree of reasoning. This is true to an extent, but does not apply to all settings of the society. The society is full of male chauvinism and oppression of women. Equality in reasoning is only applicable in areas where there is no such prejudice. In areas where chauvinism has taken root, the reasoning of men and women is not equal. Hence, Gilligan’s theory is accuirate. Works Cited Ronald F. Duska, Mariellen Whelan. Moral development: a guide to Piaget and Kohlberg. New York: Paulist Press, 2009. Read More