Originally posted by earthlings73:
Quote from post by Atobe:
You stated gay issue as purely moral. But is religion the sole
explanation for morality? But for those without religion? Do you
intend to show that all of those without religions are immoral? So
if they do not follow laws as dictated by religion, how to
understand their morality framework?
[b]Criticisms of Kohlberg
Measurement Criticisms
There have been many criticisms of Kohlberg's theory of moral
development and his methods.
The first criticizes his means of measuring levels of moral
reasoning.
Some critics claim that the use of hypothetical situations
skews the results because it measures abstract rather than concrete
reasoning.
When children (and some adults) are presented with situations out
of their immediate experience, they turn to rules they have learned
from external authorities for answers, rather than to their own
internal voice.
Therefore, young children base their answers on rules of "right"
and "wrong" they have learned from parents and teachers (Stages 1
and 2 according to Kohlberg's theory).
If young children are presented with situations familiar to them,
on the other hand, they often show care and concern for others,
basing their moral choices on the desire to share the good and
maintain harmonious relations, placing them in Stage 3 or 4 (which
Kohlberg claimed was impossible at their age).
Therefore, the criticism is that his measuring tool is faulty -
people actually operate differently in real life situations.
The next criticism is based on the "social desirability"
bias that confounds hypothetical based research
questions.
Kohlberg's emphasis on abstract reasoning in his research creates
confounds in which habitual juvenile delinquents can score at a
higher stage of moral development than well-behaved children.
Because behaviors are not considered and reasoning is determined
through hypothetical situations, children who behave in immoral
ways may be able to answer hypothetical moral dilemmas in a more
advanced fashion than better-behaved children who think less
abstractly.
Early criticisms of Kohlberg's lack of attention to behaviors led
Kohlberg to add an emphasis on moral action to his Just Community
educational program.
For those who are looking for concrete help in developing
moral values in children, however, Kohlberg's theory is still of little practical
use.
"Universality" criticisms and Gender
criticisms
The next criticims attack Kohlberg's claim that his stages of moral
development are universal, applying equally to all human beings
(and genders) across cultural divisions.
Carol Gilligan was the first to attack this aspect of Kohlberg's
theory, pointing out that there were difference between men
and women in how they reasoned morally.
Gilligan pointed out that all of Kohlberg's original
subjects were male, as was Kohlberg himself, and that they
therefore failed to place a high value on the morality of care,
sacrifice and community. (All excellent point!)
Western Bias Criticism
Another criticism pointed out that Kohlberg, as a member of the
educated, elite, white, male, Western culture, viewed individual
autonomy and justice as the premier moral values.
He even went so far as to equate morality with justice (ignoring
other moral values such as courage, self-control, empathy,
etc.).
Members of the working and rural classes, however, tend to have a
more communitarian approach to life, viewing the common good as the
highest value, promoting care and harmonious relationships over
individual justice. (Women, having been relegated to "lower class"
status for centuries, may have developed a more communitarian
approach to life for that reason, rather than simply because they
are female.)
Non-Western and tribal
societies also frequently see the
community as more important than the
individual.
"Individualistic" Criticisms
According to Kohlberg's upper-class Western view of moral
reasoning, communitarian morality is doomed to rest forever at a
lower stage of development (Stages 3 and 4).
This view disregards the possibility that communitarian
morality may be as advanced as individualistic morality, if not
more so.
It also can be seen to place Western culture at the top of the
scale, with little room for cross-cultural inclusion, although
Buddhist philosophy and Taoism can be viewed as
postconventional.
Although Kohlberg insisted that his theory was culturally
inclusive, he found little empirical evidence to back this
up.
In all of his interviews, only a few people showed Stage 5
reasoning, and nearly all were well-educated Westerners.
Stage 6 reasoning was never substantiated in interviews; Kohlberg
created it as an "ideal" and pointed to examples such as Gandhi to
support its existence.
After a tremendous amount of criticism over the fact that Stage 6
was purely hypothetical, Kohlberg removed it from the empirical
stages but retained it as a "theoretical construct in the realm of
philosophical speculation."
Despite equally heavy criticism, Kohlberg refused to remove Stage 5
from his system.
http://www.candleinthedark.com/kohlberg.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It will take a long while to defend the theory. It stated an ideal
state of society. What's important in this theory is the understand
of social contracts. Is euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment
right or wrong? If you based it on laws, you will be forced into a
certain position. But if u understand that all such cases much be
judge on a case by case basis, you will understand where is he
coming from.
The criticisms focus very much on how this has not been observed in
the real world. Please be reminded that this theory was proposed
some time back (and some as the criticisms). But with the progress
of humanity, we can see more and more people gearing towards the
liberal end and hence will use a social contract based reasoning
rather than a rule and law based reasoning.
Maybe in 50 years time, we can find the lefties become more
dominant than the righties. [/b]
The problem with your approach is that you have refused to
acknowledge the PRIMARY ROLE of MORALS STANDARDS that are
determined by the COMMUNITY that we live in, and with such MORAL
STANDARDS evolving with the development of the Community at all
levels and spheres of Human Activities - educational,
philosophical, religious, social, cultural, economic, political,
and others.
Laws are made by those living in the Community, and as such will
serve as the guiding light for all Human Activities of the
Community.
Is it so difficult to understand and to accept ?
" Progressive Changes " - as seen by you - are seemingly happening
faster elsewhere; but is this due to the maturity of those
societies, or due to the degadation of values of those societies
?
Maybe in 50 years time, we can find Lefties become more dominant
than the Righties -
do you think that this can be a possibility ?
The Left is already sinking with the LEFTIST Communist of Russia,
and the Nationalist Rightist are on the ascendancy in almost every
country will there be any more Leftist left after the storm
?
