Educational Psychology

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Paying attention to due process certainly seems like it should help to avoid mindless conformity to conventional
moral beliefs. As an ethical strategy, though, it too can sometimes fail. The problem is that an ethics of social
contract places more faith in democratic process than the process sometimes deserves, and does not pay enough
attention to the content of what gets decided. In principle (and occasionally in practice), a society could decide
democratically to kill off every member of a racial minority, for example, but would deciding this by due process
make it ethical? The realization that ethical means can sometimes serve unethical ends leads some individuals
toward Stage 6, the ethics of self-chosen, universal principles. At this final stage, the morally good action is
based on personally held principles that apply both to the person’s immediate life as well as to the larger
community and society. The universal principles may include a belief in democratic due process (Stage 5 ethics),
but also other principles, such as a belief in the dignity of all human life or the sacredness of the natural
environment. At Stage 6, the universal principles will guide a person’s beliefs even if the principles mean
disagreeing occasionally with what is customary (Stage 4) or even with what is legal (Stage 5).

Gilligan’s morality of care

As logical as they sound, Kohlberg’s stages of moral justice are not sufficient for understanding the development
of moral beliefs. To see why, suppose that you have a student who asks for an extension of the deadline for an
assignment. The justice orientation of Kohlberg’s theory would prompt you to consider issues of whether granting
the request is fair. Would the late student be able to put more effort into the assignment than other students?
Would the extension place a difficult demand on you, since you would have less time to mark the assignments?
These are important considerations related to the rights of students and the teacher. In addition to these, however,
are considerations having to do with the responsibilities that you and the requesting student have for each other
and for others. Does the student have a valid personal reason (illness, death in the family, etc.) for the assignment
being late? Will the assignment lose its educational value if the student has to turn it in prematurely? These latter
questions have less to do with fairness and rights, and more to do with taking care of and responsibility for
students. They require a framework different from Kohlberg’s to be understood fully.

One such framework has been developed by Carol Gilligan, whose ideas center on a morality of care, or
system of beliefs about human responsibilities, care, and consideration for others. Gilligan proposed three moral
positions that represent different extents or breadth of ethical care. Unlike Kohlberg, Piaget, or Erikson, she does
not claim that the positions form a strictly developmental sequence, but only that they can be ranked hierarchically
according to their depth or subtlety. In this respect her theory is “semi-developmental” in a way similar to Maslow’s
theory of motivation (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995). Table 10 summarizes the three
moral positions from Gilligan’s theory

Table 10: Positions of moral development according to Gilligan

Moral position Definition of what is morally good

Position 1: Survival

orientation

Action that considers one's personal needs only

Position 2: Conventional

care

Action that considers others' needs or preferences, but not one's own

Educational Psychology 59 A Global Text