Integrating Care And Justice: Moral Development Essay, Research Paper
Part One:
The criticisms of Kohlberg’s moral development
stages seem to center around three major points, his research methods,
the “regression” of stage four, and finally his goals.
The first criticism that I would like to
address is that of his research methods. Kohlberg is often criticized for
not only his subject selection, but also the methods by which he tries
to extricate data from those subjects. His initial study consisted of school
boys from a private institution in Chicago. The problem with this is fairly
obvious, that this does not represent a significant portion of the population
to allow for generalized conclusions. In other words, how can we test some
boys from Chicago and ascertain that this is how all people develop worldwide?
I believe that the answer to this criticism
comes from the theory that it relates to. Kohlberg’s moral development
schema is highly dependent upon the idea that there are fundamental truths
that cannot be dismissed. These ideas are “in the ether”, wound into the
very fabric that constructs human nature. Granted, his descriptions of
the various stages also seem very dependent upon the surroundings and social
institutions that an individual would be subjected to. Yet these institutions
would be have to be built upon people, all of whom would share these ideological
truths. It seems fairly obvious that all people have undeniable needs,
survival and some group membership. Kohlberg’s stages are merely methods
by which one could fulfill these needs. For instance, Spartan societies
were adamant about maintaining the purity and strength of the civilization.
Citizens saw no wrong in exposing a sick or lame baby to the elements so
that it might die. Surely an act of cruelty today, but in that society,
a necessary evil The prosperity and wealth of the whole was of greater
importance than that of the individual.
In addition to these justifications, additional
research substantiated Kohlberg’s claims. Different subjects were tested,
from all ages and regions, and the same conclusions were drawn from the
data. Assuming that these conclusions are correct, and the data leads to
the same interpretation, is there any other possibility? This argument
seems most impressive, especially considering the differences between people
that are evident in everyday life. Similarities on such an abstract level
must be supportive of Kohlberg’s claims.
Another criticism of Kohlberg assumes that
his subjects are biased, but proposes that his methods are even worse.
To get the perspective of another person, he confronts them with seemingly
impossible, unrealistic, and confrontational dilemmas. I, myself, had trouble
with the Heinz dilemma because of my inability to believe that it was something
that could take place in the real world. Even more so, the situation was
something that was very foreign, and very hard to relate to. Anyone who
has contemplated something very life changing, like a death in the family,
then experienced it, understands how different it is to actually be faced
with the dilemma. When theorizing, it is hard to maintain the intimate
connection needed to truly react to a moral dilemma.
My defense of this situation comes from
a lack of a suitable alternative. True moral dilemmas are not only rare,
but extremely hard to document. When faced with a situation that demands
not only one’s complete attention, but emotional vigor, it is really hard
to find time to document or discuss feelings (let alone the motivation
to do so!). For example, looking at the Heinz dilemma, it would be very
hard to explain why one was chasing
a man around while he tried to find
a cure for his dying wife. An even less enticing alternative would be trying
to sit him down and discuss how he was feeling.
So, the only proper and effective way to
get a response is to propose a hypothetical situation, and document replies.
It may not elicit the pure data that one desires, but according to the
Heisenberg principle, it is impossible to measure anything without influencing
it. Some research methods indicate that it is more important to follow
one’s thoughts through the reasoning process, rather than just asking for
possible solutions. However, I have to believe, and justify from personal
experience, that people have incredibly low attention spans. Asking someone
to explain how they think through a decision is almost as likely to yield
useful data as asking them to volunteer their PIN numbers. It seems as
though people are able not only to be influenced, but to influence themselves
into making different decisions. This can lead to the “endless circle”
conversation.
The criticism that I find most interesting
is the supposed “regression” that occurs when going from stage three to
four. Personally, I must agree with the idea that it is, in fact, a priority
change. I also believe that this comes from my undeniable faith in the
“goodness” of humanity. I would like to believe that in their heart and
soul, everyone is good natured. So, to see that one must develop stage
four is disappointing.
Yet, I will agree that it is necessary.
It is a comprehensive step, and an improvement from the stage three point
of view. No matter how enticing and supposedly noble stage three appears,
it is lacking components necessary to promote the functionality of the
person who holds it. A loss of innocence is not necessarily a detriment,
especially when considering personal experience. Skin tends to thicken
as one gets older. Therefore, is it necessarily a regression that someone
would tend to trust others less, and be more interested maintaining social
institutions?
I believe that this in no way represents
a regression, but rather a broadened scope and interpretation of surroundings.
At level three, you are totally interested in fulfilling the obligations
that are expected of you. The world seems a very small place, one person
and your surroundings, people, places, and things. If the requirements
that are expected from day to day, from people who are very close to you
can be fulfilled, that is the absolute goal. As one grows older, you are
exposed to more of the institutions and methods that are integral to the
relationship and interaction of all people. The rules have changed. There
are more requirements, more expected of you. Unfortunately, every person
does not have limitless resources with which to meet all of these goals.
So, priorities must change. New social institutions now appear to be the
driving force in happiness and security. So, they now encompass all the
priorities that drove a person at stage three. To fulfill the previous
stage’s goals with this new scope, one must dedicate resources to it.
Finally, I would like to discuss Kohlberg’s
point of view when considering what I call his “goals”. Some have criticized
that Kohlberg is trying to objectify morality to a Natural Law, or justice
perspective. Although he does seem to abstract characteristics to a societal
level, I do not believe that his is an honest attempt to undermine the
gathered data integrity. In other words, although it seems he is drawing
the same conclusions over and over, he is not distorting it to do so.
Kohlberg is often criticized for a libertarian
ideological bias in his conclusions of gathered data. In addition, it has
been observed that his conclusions are carefully explained, argued and
defended, but they can be twisted and contorted to fit any range of different
opinions. They mandate an agreement to social contract, that being used
as a philosophical base from which moral guidelines are built. But social
systems differ from region to region, and within regions by people.
I believe that the criticisms themselves
do not harm Kohlberg’s views, but rather enforce them. As I have discussed
before, there are undeniable personal needs that every individual works
to fulfill, regardless of stated motives. Everyone needs to survive, and
to be emotionally fulfilled by belonging. The systems by which people administer
their interaction are simply tools by which they meet those needs. However,
I have also said that I have a flawless devotion to the goodness of mankind.
Thereby, I believe that people are trying to better their situation relative
to one another and the situation of society as a whole. Kohlberg may view
these moral ideals as too socially interactive, but isn’t that what the
true goal of any of this is? People truly feel good when they have met
their desires, and one of those is to exist with other people in a cohesive
social system. As unbelievable as it may sound, Kohlberg’s findings do
not represent distorted data, but rather the incredible coincidence that
all people, on some level, are inherently similar.
It would be unfair to try to enforce the
ideas that come with Kohlbergian justice without also defending Carol Gilligan’s
theme of caring. Therefore, I would like to address three criticisms: the
paradox of self-care, the idea that care is a regressive movement, and
finally, the seemingly huge jump from stage one to two.
I personally find the self-care characteristic
of caring to be the most interesting to discuss. During class sessions,
everyone seemed most interested with this perspective. It seems as though
it is the ethical issue that plagues society. Where does the balance lie
between seeking to fulfill one’s own interests, and meeting the requirements
placed upon one by others? I believe that we all recognize a need to initialize
and solidify a healthy caring for oneself before it is possible to be outwardly
caring for others.
However, the way that this method is proposed
makes it appear as though it might be a cop-out.
My perspective comes from the fact that
there is no really appropriate way to show self-care without seeming self-centered.
No matter how little one dedicates to oneself, no matter what the circumstances,
someone will see it as too much. Yet, there is no effective way to show
compassion, respect, or contentment with the outside world without first
developing all of these attributes within oneself. When constructing this
self-persona, the goal is not to become conceited, but rather to develop
a foundation upon which more complex interactions can be constructed. Of
course, any well intentioned act can be construed into something that it
is not. I truly believe that this is the case when critiquing self-care.
I would also like to argue that self-care
as a whole is not what it seems to be, nor is it what it’s name implies.
Rather, it is a competence at a certain level personal and societal development.
At earlier times in one’s life, the easiest way to contribute to surroundings
is to not harm them. For instance, it would not be expected of a toddler
to assist in the preparation of dinner. The best that he could hope to
do is not destroy anything! At this level of development adequacy is defined
by not harming something, not necessarily working towards it’s betterment.
So, caring for oneself is not self-centered at all, it is the best method
available. By caring for oneself, you are bettering your personal situation.
In turn, this improves the quality of not only your life, but those around
you. You are more presentable, easier to associate with, and more productive.
With my previous point in mind, I would
like to move onto the idea that the levels of caring are actually a regression
from previous stages. This assumption comes from comparisons of Kohlbergian
stage three attributes, with that of Gilligan’s care stages. Stage three
(Kohlberg) seems to represent the “Prince Valiant” of personalities. One
should work towards becoming a better person, fulfill societal requirements,
forgive transgressions, and exhibit constant unadulterated pacifism. It
truly seems to be a noble individual, the likes of which exist only in
fairy tales and fantasy novels. Stage one of caring then comes along, representing
a more introspective, self-interested individual. This new person is very
afraid of hurt from others, and does everything within his/her power to
avoid it. In fact, this includes not reaching out to others in any way,
so that there is no chance of being scarred.
It seems as though this is an almost childish,
selfish response to harsh reality. But reality is the point! Reality does
not allow for Prince Valiant to be effective. Instead, he is abused, stepped
on, and taken for granted. These are not exactly prime rewards for someone
who is dedicated to being a good person and helping others. However, this
raises a conflicting point, when we now consider that society’s mistreatment
of people leads them to lose their faith. So all people must be inherently
abusive, right? I should hope not, but rather, that it is a case of poor
timing. Granted, there will be cases where people are, in fact, not “role
models”. They will be non-supportive, destructive, and frustrating. From
personal experience (and thereby bias), I find that most people are not
evil, but just not at the same stage. Everyone can remember back to grammar
and middle school, where children are not only non-supportive, but cruel
and incredibly hurtful. As they grow older, these characteristics disappear.
In the meantime, however, they are busy dismantling the naïve nobility
of stage three. If, somehow, all people could be raised to the same levels
at the same time, there is a chance we would never see the desensitizing
that we do. So, it is not a regression, but a move forward, a better ability
to deal with the real world.
Finally, one of the biggest critiques of
the caring system is the difference between the first and second stages.
While stage one has been criticized for being a regression, stage two has
been attacked for being a quantum leap from stage one. The morals and guiding
themes of stage two are so diametrically different from that of stage one,
that it seems almost an impossible move. Also, there is an argument that
stage two admits that stage one was a regression, stage two merely brings
us back up to par.
Stage two, admittedly, is a huge step in
personal thinking. Instead of the self-centered, protective nature of stage
one, stage two is predicated on self-sacrifice, maternal instincts, and
maintaining peace. To me, this is not a step back up to a stage that was
lost during a stage one regression, but an incredibly comprehensive step
forward. The key is that this stage does not even attack the same issues
in a similar way. Rather, it depends upon using oneself as a tool to show
interest and caring for others. In terms of conflicting views, this could
be the most impressive point towards unifying them. Some view this entire
stage as a complete change of heart, throwing out all ideals and starting
anew. Instead of looking at it with the previous stage’s perspective, the
way to attack this is to recognize that this way of thinking is an entirely
new strategy.
(The next section is assuming that one
would naturally move from a Kohlbergian stage three to Gilligan’s stage
one). Stage three was nice, but too nice. It allowed too many opportunities
for those who did not share stage three to abuse someone who does. It was
obviously inadequate. So, instead of rashly charging into a different mindset,
one takes time to “rebuild the foundation” (Gilligan stage one). With a
new base to build upon, one can put together another plan of attack. Those
undeniable human goals are still there, it is just a matter of coming up
with a good system to accomplish them.
At stage two, with the scars of inefficient
methods still showing, one can try to develop a new system that is comparable
to all previous attempts, but slightly better. If hurt significantly by
stage three’s inability to deal with conflict, caring stage two may not
come about until much later. Stage one is a healing process that leads
to a new outlook, and a greater ability to deal with the problems that
plagued stage three. It seems silly to assume that people develop by trial
and error, but I would like to meet the person who hasn’t! Everyone makes
bad decisions, then tries to make sure that those events do not repeat
themselves. This idea is integral to the stage two leap.