Kohlberg's critiscisms

Although I like Kolbherg's three levels of moral thought, I do agree with it's criticisms. I think he is too narrow in the way he evaluates individuals stages of morality. Theses stages are good foundations of what to expect at certain ages but "do not take in cultural or gender differences into account" (Berger, 2011). Kolhberg originally tested all boys in his cases which may have led him to downgrade female values of nurturance and relationships (Gilligan, 1982). Girls and boys are built differently in some aspects and one of those main differences is in emotion. Girls are usually born with a more caring and sensitive side. Society also makes it look exceptable for girls to come off emotional but for boys it's a sign of weakness. Young men are usually portrayed as the ones who can bend and break the rules and get away with it. Some examples is breaking breaking someone's heart, joyriding in their parents car, throwing a huge underaged party, and underaged sex. Even though these things are known to be morally wrong to most, it seems pretty normal for a young man to portake in these events. If a female partakes in these events it usually is frowned apon more in society. Culture also   is a big issue that Kolbherg ignores. The same examples listed above may seem more normal in countries or cultures in Europe but for many Asian cultures they may seem morally wrong, or vise versa. So it is very important that we look and expand beyond Kohlberg;s levels when dealing with morality.

Citations:

Berger, Kathleen. (2011). The Developing Person Through the Life Span. New York, NY : Worth Publishers.