This view of morality has been criticized as
gender-
biased, most notably by
Carol Gilligan. It places the highest value on
universal moral principles, but these become clearest when they lead to conflict with society's established
ethos. Consider two people, one whose
self-justifying ends focus on
fundamental human rights and personal freedom, and another who is at the same stage of development, but gives
intrinsic value to
relationships and
community. The former is more likely to be a
troublemaker, and thus stand out as someone who believes strongly in an independent morality. The latter will direct hir energy towards producing
consensus and avoiding destructive kinds of
conflict, which makes hir seem more
conventional and socially
conditioned.
You don't have to be a
feminist to notice that most women tend to form larger, more complex
social networks than most men, or that men make more frequent use of
domination and social
posturing. These tendencies suggest that women who are fully postconventional in their morality might still choose to obey an unjust law, choose a family over a career, or
subordinate their own desires to others'. This is not because they're unable to think beyond social approval and societal reward and punishment -- it's because they value
harmony highly enough to give up other concerns.
Another gender-based criticism of Kohlberg is that he views logical reasoning as being the mechanism for moral development -- one
generalizes the rules one learns, from stage to stage, until reaching a point where the moral
calculus can be completely
pure, proceeding from the
first principles of one's morality rather than from
irrational feelings or social
dogma. But the story of scholarly
feminism in the last 40 years has largely been about the redemption of emotion as a legitimate tool of reason. That discussion is beyond the scope of this node, but
suffice it to say that feelings about what is
proper and what is an
abomination help us
hedge our bets against thinking we understand something we don't, and potentially
overreaching ourselves. Women may be more likely to realize this, and discard reason as the ultimate tool of morality even though they're perfectly capable of using it
instrumentally -- and may even use reason to justify this decision.
Overall, Kohlberg's model is useful insofar as it illuminates the journey most people make from unreflective selfishness to life as part of a culture to -- if they play their cards right --
enlightenment or
self-actualization. However, measures of moral development that do not carefully consider the most
distal reasoning behind a judgement threaten to overrate rebellious behavior and miss the virtues of
care-oriented thinking.
For more on Gilligan Vs. Kohlberg, see http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/handbook/Gilligan.html, or Gilligan's book In a Different Voice.