Comparative Analysis of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan

Comparative Analysis of Lawrence Kohlberg and chirrup GilliganEmma Haslam object lesson ReasoningHuman well-being is non a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors ranging from genetic science and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be kn protest about how we can flourish in this world. wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of honourableity apply. Sam Harris (2015)In many respects, the cognitive- ascendmental range of a function at heart lesson psychology has had an unstable record. First introduced by Baldwin (1906), then taken up just quickly abandoned by Piaget (1932, 1965), many years passed before it was reintroduced and fully delineated by Kohlberg (1971, 1984). The limitations of the moral do principal(prenominal) have now been extended well beyond those of Kohlbergs nicety enquiry to involve other orientations to moral understanding such as Carol Gilligans Care look into (1982). The nominate of this essay is to compare and contrast two theories of moral thinking with reference to empirical research. Named theories include Lawrence Kohlbergs arbitrator and Carol Gilligans Care. This piece will focus on the studies individually as well as analyze the similarities and differences for both and will also look into some critical re affects from other research that has been conducted since regarding care and umpire. The reason for choosing Kohlberg and Gilligans pieces of research are because both are leading researchers in the demesne of cognitive development and the research is kn witness and used by academics worldwide.Lawrence Kohlberg was a developmental psychologist who studied Piagets constructivist theory and act to base his own work around the molding constructed by Piaget. This led to Kohlberg developing his own cognitive developmental model known today as Justice. Kohlberg had a direction for his research and that was to focus on the reasoning behind answers. Feminists (among other) have criticised the hegemony of justice reasoning in Kohlbergs theory, proposing that a much relational, care and reaction orientation is an equally valid conception of godliness and one that is more often representative of the moral experience of a woman (e.g. Gilligan 1982 Noddings, 1984).Carol Gilligan became a student and research assistant of Lawrence Kohlberg in 1970 and provided her own justifications from Kohlbergs original addition and proposed considering gender identity and therefore made another discovery inwardly the field of cognitive developmental psychology that Kohlberg did not consider.Kohlberg began his research looking into how children develop from birth and continued the research to span an entire sustenancetime. The founding principle of development was the recognition of the value of justice, acceptance of justice as a governing factor of an individuals own actions and also a philosophical understanding of justice (Kohlberg, 1971). This shows very early on that everything was based around understanding justice and how it use to an individuals understanding towards moral reasoning. The first questions provide evidence for this and it is stated How to avoid penalty from a punitive point of view (Kohlberg, 1984). This statement highlights the fact that the empirical research is justice based. at that place are three main stages to Kohlbergs research with six sub-sections. The first is the Pre conventional stage loyalty and punishment orientation (How can I avoid punishment?), Self-interest orientation, (Whats in it for me?), (Paying for a benefit). The atomic number 42 stage is Conventional, Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms) (The good boy/girl attitude), Authority and social- consecrate maintaining orientation (Law and order morality) and the final is Level 3, Post-Conventional, Social contract orientation, Universal ethical principles, (Principled conscience). (Kohlberg, 19 71).Gilligan would go on to criticise Kohlbergs theory as Kohlberg exclusively studied privileged white men and boys, Gilligan felt this caused a prejudice opinion against women. Gilligan designed a paradigm of female development centralised on the subject of compassionate as a formative virtue. This was based around Kohlbergs original ideas and structure. Gilligan wanted to outline that women were not moral midgets and was also against many psychological opinions such as another great theorist, Erikson who believed that the tasks of development were legal separation from the mother and family. If women did not succeed on this scale then those individuals were obviously lacking. therefore Gilligans goal was seen as a good case for feminism and psychology as a whole. The view cerebrate on the individuals growth to care for and better understand others. Gilligans soonest transition for the stages of development suggests a move from self interest to a responsibility for others (Arnold, 2000). The male life form was seen as a norm. Psychologists that performed research before for example Freud, Piaget and Erikson all had male points of view and focused mainly on male cognitive development. The previous views are shown to be neither neutral nor impartial. There is no room for care or human relationships which are essential parts for morals of maturity date (Gilligan, 1977).Kohlbergs study group subjected only male participants to the research, whereas Gilligans study group was subject to only female participants. Early constructivist views of cognitive development show little between genders. Gilligan observed that the alienation felt from Kohlbergs views were the result from his studies having a skewed perspective towards male development as about of the research conducted in the field prior to Kohlberg. The result of this was a formative foundation for male cognitive development. Kohlberg notice that male subjects develop in relation to the understandi ng of justice, from simple punitive evasion to a contented philosophical acceptance for the meaning of justice. Gilligans study group was a duplicate study of Kohlbergs work with, alternate focus that allowed for comparison for any significant differences in gender development. Females follow a different trend of cognitive and that focuses around caring and a respect for life. Gilligan discovered that female subjects develop in the understanding of humanity, developing from simple obedience to a universal philosophical understanding of morality. Gilligan also discovered that a morality of care can also serve in place of the morality of justice and rights earlier theorised by Kohlberg. Gilligan views morality of care and morality of justice as distinct unless also connecting. (Young, 1999). Gilligan believed that the care based morality was prominent in women. Co-operation, compromise makes levels of overall happiness a lot higher in women. This is partially due to how men and wom en are socialised. Unlike Kohlbergs three main and six sub stages, Gilligans research only comprised of three stages, Pre-conventional where one learns to care for oneself, Conventional, this shows that and individual throw up their own needs behind them to care for others and finally the post-conventional stage. This is when a balance is reached and the individual learns to care for themselves and others at the same time.All of the research conducted by both Kohlberg and Gilligan has had critical reviews by other researches in the field however, the basis of the research is crucial to knowing a basing around the moral foundation of an individual.In conclusion, most moral psychologists accepted that there are two types of moral reasoning which are Kohlbergs justice and Gilligans care, although Kohlbergs vast legacy to moral psychology is widely ac associationd to far outweigh the shortcomings of his theory, in recent years there has been a growing sense within the cognitive-develop mental paradigm that a more comprehensive theory of morality is long overdue. By more closely attending to the contextual and inborn features of morality of everyday life, this contemporary work lays the foundation for a more comprehensive understanding of the constitution of the moral person. Further research within this field is widely anticipated to gain greater knowledge around how and why people view and practice moral behaviour in society and within oneself.ReferencesArnold, M. (2000). Stage, Sequence, and Sequels Changing Conceptions of Morality, Post-Kohlberg. Retrieved 1 April 2015, from http//202.119.108.48/dyxr/Text/2008-01-03-03-21-01d03sf445zxbupn3k5ed2e555_4.pdfAshcraft, K., Mumby, D. (2004). Reworking gender. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.Blum, L. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg Implications for Moral Theory. ETHICS, 98(3), 472. doi10.1086/292966BrainyQuote,. (2015). Sam Harris Quotes at BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved 4 April 2015, from http//www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s /samharris527746.htmlElorrieta-Grimalt, M. (2012). A Critical Analysis of Moral tuition According to Lawrence Kohlberg. Educ.Educ, 15(3), 497-512. doi10.5294/edu.2012.15.3.9Kohlberg, L. (1968). Early Education A Cognitive-Developmental View. Child Development, 39(4), 1013. doi10.2307/1127272Reed, T. (1987). Developmental Moral TheoryThe Psychology of Moral Development. Lawrence Kohlberg. ETHICS, 97(2), 441. doi10.1086/292850Whetnall, E. (1933). The Moral Judgment of the Child. By Jean Piaget. (International Library of Psychology and Philosophy. London Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner Co. 1932. Pp. ix + 417. Price 12s. 6d.). Philosophy, 8(31), 373. doi10.1017/s0031819100033131