FYF 101

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Reading 9/10

Please read before class Friday Sept 10th: Kohlberg's Moral Stages.

For Discussion:

Which of the criticisms of Kohlberg's stages do you find most compelling? Why?

posted by Anthony at 5:37 PM

23 Comments:

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger ColtonMiller, at Fri Sep 03, 10:23:00 AM 2010  

  • @Colton - the question was which criticism you disagree with - not which stage! The criticisms appear in the Evaluation section at the end of the article.

    By Blogger Anthony, at Fri Sep 03, 10:27:00 AM 2010  

  • I will fix that!

    By Blogger ColtonMiller, at Fri Sep 03, 10:41:00 AM 2010  

  • The criticism by Simpson is interesting. Generally the way people are raised in the west does match up with his stages. Stage 1 was a lot like my childhood, my parents telling me not to curse etc. As I got older I just tried to avoid my parents hearing me say it. I know it's a lot like that to other people also which gives Simpson a good arguement. We are in a Western Culture so I can assume these are points he could be talking about.

    I don't really know people's moral values in Eastern cultures so i can't really say much about that, but i can see how he can say it's biased. In the 6 stages, I think i can relate to all of them with things I've experienced throughout my life. Kohlberg makes a great description of the way people see things as they grow up and go through different stages, but it only applies to one culture in the world.

    By Blogger ColtonMiller, at Fri Sep 03, 10:55:00 AM 2010  

  • Being that Kohlberg has been accused of being sexist, I disagree with the assumption that men think differently than women. Of course in some aspects men evaluate situations in different context, but all in all most people, both men and women, analyze situations based on morality, similarly. Being said, the Western Culture is most noted for evaluating situations based on Denotology. This being the assumption, that would mean that despite sex, the decisions chosen regarding law and morality, men and women would chose to evaluate whatever situation not based on the consequence but by the benefit to whomever they are helping. Another way to think about decisions based on what I consider a Deontological Framework is as follows: Say you see a baby drowning in the river. You wouldn't contemplate the baby's death as whether or not there was a possibility of this child becoming the next Hitler, no you save it, unquestioning its future, unquestioning your future. The same goes for any instance in helping someone, whether you are a man or a woman. Despite Gilligan's argument that women scored differently on Kohlberg's scale of rationality than men, it doesn't matter when thinking about a situation, and actually being in the situation is different. Compassion influences decisions, not the thought process of whatever gender one is.

    In logical terms, the brain cannot process every possible outcome before taking initiation to help someone else. This particularly relates to situations in which you have a short amount of time to decide how to help someone. The only part of Gilligan's theory that I agree with is when she states that Women have more a chance to put morality before laws and rules, but this is still a flawed statement. She doesn't consider that men are also able to show compassion and the want for relationships. Whether or not women are more nurturing oriented, men can be as well, despite analyzing situations based on law or social order. I believe that men and women will always demonstrate solutions with regard to the outcome for those they are helping rather than themselves, because of human regard to showing care, especially for those you love, but really for anyone in danger.

    By Blogger Amber Nicole Konopka, at Sat Sep 04, 10:06:00 AM 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Amber Nicole Konopka, at Sat Sep 04, 10:06:00 AM 2010  

  • I disagree with the criticism that development may proceed along more than one line. Yes, some might say that there should be two lines (one for men and one for women), but if the picture is looked at as a whole, men and women are equal. The way our thought processes develop are basically the same. If a little girl and a little boy were asked the same question about the druggist overcharging for a needed drug for a dying wife/mother, I'm sure they would give very similar simple responses. I think both men and women develop the same, but not necessarily at the same rate. Gilligan says that one line focuses on "logic, justice and social organization" and the other is on "interpersonal relationships". I think that both of these so called lines are intertwined into one. There is no distinction. Everyone possesses the potential to have a certain level of logic, etc, but it is up to the individual if they take advantage of it or not.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Sun Sep 05, 01:16:00 PM 2010  

  • I must question the validity of Kohlberg's "Moral Stages". I personally find Gilligan’s argument to Kohlberg compelling in part because I am a woman. I sometimes wonder if women have a different moral compass than men. Consider current situations: health care, war, education. Many can argue if more women were in the driver's seat, today’s world would most likely be different. I for one believe it would. For example, Health Care. Before Health Care became "big business", it was a mission. A mission to help those in need. Not an opportunity to make money. In order to make the "Moral Stages" more appropriate, Kohlberg should experiment with women also.

    By Blogger Emily Christian, at Sun Sep 05, 07:47:00 PM 2010  

  • I find Carol Gilligan's criticism of Kohlberg's stages the most compelling, although i am undecided about whom i agree with. Kohlberg's stages were based off of studies of males, yet the data may still be accurate for women as well. Gilligan attempts to generalize all women. She states "For women, morality centers not on rights and rules but on interpersonal relationships and the ethics of compassion and care." This is not always accurate and is an unfair assumption. Many women think along the lines of rights and rules rather than just emotions. I also think many men think along the lines of emotions as well. It is quite possible that Kohlberg's stages are accurate for both sexes. If Kohlberg had studied both sexes I believe his data would be almost the same as his data from males alone. All people are different and think differently, not just in line with what is typical from their gender.

    By Blogger theresaroman, at Mon Sep 06, 02:47:00 PM 2010  

  • After reading the section of reading and reviewing the criticism made by others I think that I would have to disagree with Hogan the most. Everyone is raised different and has a different set of morals and beliefs. While at one time or another everyone living within one area might have all be raised the same and taught the same the same things it is no longer like that. What is wrong to one person may not be wrong to another. Using the example from the reading about the husband and his dying wife, I think that what he did was right. He made the choice to steal from the selfish and heartless druggist. I think that the person that is morally wrong is the person that is not giving the dying woman the drug she needs to stay alive. He has the power to save the wife’s life but is choosing not to. While I think that it could get dangerous because some peoples principals are way out of line I believe that for the most part your beliefs and principals should always come first. If that means that you must go to jail for something that you think is morally correct then you should do it. You cannot let anything change your views and principals not even law.

    By Blogger Alex George, at Tue Sep 07, 08:09:00 AM 2010  

  • The most compelling criticism of Kohlberg's Moral Stages, in my opinion, is Gilligan's. I think his stages are not as accurate as they could be. If he did studies on women too, the stages would have less criticisms. I think that men and women do have different views and morals than men do. For example, most men and women have different views on war. Women are more sensitive towards this topic then men are, for the most part. If Kohlberg studied women and included the studies in his stages, they would be more accurate.

    By Blogger mskevofilax, at Tue Sep 07, 10:54:00 AM 2010  

  • Personally, I find Carol Gilligan’s criticism the most compelling. However, I do not fully agree with it. I do agree that there is more than one thought process and more than one approach to every situation and dilemma that may arise in life, however, these different approaches are not necessarily separated by a person’s gender. It is natural to assume that women are more compassionate than men but thought processes shouldn’t be stereotyped. There needs to be a point where the line is drawn.

    Any person, man or woman, is capable of thinking with a wide array of processes. A woman can close off her emotions and see the logical aspect of a situation just as much as a man can tap into his emotions and see the compassionate side of a situation. Therefore, I think that the thought processes, i.e. social order and interpersonal relationships, are intertwined.

    By Blogger Cynthia Kiesling, at Tue Sep 07, 02:09:00 PM 2010  

  • i mostly compell with stage six because its the only stage that allows all parties to see all the sides to the story an are able to see where the reactor is cuming from and why he/she needed to do what they did.Stage one-four makes sense but not enough reasons. I would agree with stage five but it seems like if it wasnt i life or death situation it wouldn't be ok.

    By Blogger orane churchill, at Wed Sep 08, 11:52:00 AM 2010  

  • I disagree with Hogan's belief that it is dangerous for people to place their own principles above society and the law. Everyone has different morals. Someone might do one thing that they feel is completely acceptable, and another person might view that action as wrongful. Sure, Heinz did break the law when he stole from the druggist, but is what he did really terrible? Who had to go through more suffering, the druggist or the dying wife? Since when is the law greater than a human life?

    By Blogger Unknown, at Wed Sep 08, 03:49:00 PM 2010  

  • I find Simpson and Gilligan’s arguments most compelling because I believe on the surface they both raise a good point, Kohlberg’s stages and tests appear culturally and sexually biased. However, it seems to me that it does not matter who he tested his theories on. All that matters is the context of the persons stage (i.e. the reason why they are at that stage). There is no point in comparing the various stages that are achieved by males and females and different cultures. A comparison can only be made between people of the same society because different societies may have different maximum stages because of their beliefs. To me every person, no matter what culture or sex, has the capacity to achieve all six of Kohlberg’s moral stages. It is the person’s upbringing and personal beliefs that are developed throughout life that carry him/her through the stages and direct which stage a person will be in a at certain age. In essence, the moral development of a person needs to be understood with respect to his/her life.

    I also found the argument by Hogan not necessarily compelling, but the truest. It is extremely dangerous for people to place their own principles above society and the law. If every person did what ever they felt was right, there would be no point to even having laws. The world would simply be in complete chaos. I believe that society as a whole needs to find the right balance between the instances where personal principles trump the law and instances where the law trumps personal beliefs.

    By Blogger egreen, at Thu Sep 09, 03:52:00 PM 2010  

  • I agree with many people on their different positions so it's hard to argue just one point. I agree that as previously posted that perhaps women should have gotten a part in this for themselves, since it seems that they are always put to the wayside along side men. However, i do agree that we are all human and therefore are capable of having the same logic and the same thoughts. Many of Gilligans theorys have enough point to stand of their own, however help each other, which i think is key. Over all, i believe men and women are both equal in this and their logic, just sometimes misunderstood.

    By Blogger KellyMarie, at Thu Sep 09, 06:52:00 PM 2010  

  • I find Gilligans criticism most compelling because I do believe Kohlbergs theory is sex-biased also. He first began his study with only boys. Although he did later add girls, he does not give female perspectives on the matters compared to males. I also agree with Gilligans conception on male vs. female morality. Yes, a lot of men and women have the same morals, but I believe their personal standpoints differ with certain of those morals. I believe women tend to be more sensitive on certain moral issues such as abortion, as Gilligan pointed out, because regardless of your religious belief of a matter like that, morallity has a big role in your decision process. I also believe men and womens morality can change being actually put into such situations. Morals depend on the personal levels more as which sex. Overall, Kohlberg is a bit sex-biased and Gilligan does make good arguments as of why.

    By Blogger Jaclyn Dicarlo, at Thu Sep 09, 08:25:00 PM 2010  

  • I disagree with Kohlberg on the fact that we as humans follow the stages from one to six chronologically with out skipping a stage. Why does that have to be? Everyone's brain does not function the same way let alone in the same stages as others. Learning does not follow a guideline. Morality is based on upbringing, intelligence, and personal experience. One may decide that stage four or five seems to be the ideal way of thinking after just being in the thought process of stage two. I would just like more reasoning or proof that the stages are followed perfectly.

    By Blogger Nick Patricia, at Thu Sep 09, 11:37:00 PM 2010  

  • the most compelling criticism to me is Gilligan's. wether hes sexist or not he has a point. In some situations i think women and men both look at things in the same perspective, but there are alot of instances that women and men take complete opposite views on a subject. In my opinnion men seem to be more agressive and leanient towards violant situations, where a women would take a more passive route. this is not true in all cases but I feel that women have a motherly nature and it's just part of there make up.
    In the situation that kohlberg brings before us i believe that both men and women would have the same view on helping another person especially a loved one. It makes sense that every human would look at this problem in a moral way. and justify the stealing to save a life.

    By Blogger Manzione.Dominic, at Fri Sep 10, 11:25:00 AM 2010  

  • Post by Mark Attilio
    There is only one criticism that truly grabbed my attention when it came to Kohlberg's theory. The funniest part of it, is that I find this argument both supported and unsupported. The argument in question is presented by Carol Gilligan, and brings to light the seemingly sexist nature of the stages. According to Gilligan, since the test where based on males, females will tend to show up lower on the scale do to their more loving nature.
    I find this to be somewhat insulting toward the female figure in general. There are many females in this world that I fundamentally respect, quite highly, for their sincere morals that peak unquestionable above stage 3 values. To say that a female will progress much slower, FUNDIMENTALLY along the moral scales is a more sexist statement than the test could possibly be. Now there may be a slight variation, but nothing to throw a fit over. Does she think that females are so loving that they will take no time to be part of society and transition from stage 3-4? This I find to be demeaning, in nature, toward the many outstanding and wonderful moral female characters I have meet over the year.
    There is, however, one reason I do support her, and that only has to do with the scientific theory. One should not leave such things to reasonable doubt; they should be tested, instead of assumed. So while it does pain me to say it, there is reason to check the stages on females as well.

    By Blogger Vader, at Sat Sep 11, 12:49:00 PM 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger mitchell.yamrus, at Mon Sep 13, 09:53:00 AM 2010  

  • I think that discussing men and women's differing morals is pointless when the choices that Kohlberg presents us with are so narrow. If there is a baby drowning in a river, there are two choices, save or not, so to assume that men and women do not differ because they both save the baby is incorrect. We are not given examples of multiple decision problems, one where there can be more than than one "positive" outcome, with varying degrees of sacrifice or loss on the problem solvers part. Until we look at much more realistic choice-events, it is pointless to comment on the morals and actions of differing sexes. Gilligan states that men focus more on rules and laws, but these are not factors relating to any of the decisions. For example, one may look at the problem of the man and the medicine. It appears that the problem is multi-faceted, with multiple outcomes, but this is not true, the DECISION is the life or death of the spouse, one decision is being made. It would be foolish to assume that males or females would make different decisions simply because there is jailtime involved, there are still only two choices. I sort of went off on a tangent on this, but I find it pointless on Gilligan's part to cry out sexist when there aren't any true situations where sex could possibly play a role.

    By Blogger mitchell.yamrus, at Mon Sep 13, 01:41:00 PM 2010  

  • I do not entirely agree with Kohlberg about his six stages. I think people can be at any stage at any point in their lives. It's all in the way a person is raised. Generally speaking, he may have a general average of when someone progresses to these stages, but I do not believe that they are all necessarily true. Some children develop faster than others, some slower. Also, I believe to make a more agreeable argument for himself, he should have interviewed and studied girls as well. I believe girls progress faster than boys, however, it is just my opinion. This is not to say that all girls mature faster than boys, but I believe for the most part they do. To be more accurate he'd have to interview girls as well.

    By Blogger Rachel Kuprionas, at Mon Sep 13, 07:30:00 PM 2010  



<< Home