Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

The Philosophical Roots of Gilligan-Kohlberg Controversy

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_416-1
How to cite

Synonyms

Ethics of care; gilligan; kant; kohlberg; philosophy of education; theories of moral development

The American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) is a modern classic in the fields of moral social psychology and theory of a moral development. His cognitivistic theory of moral development has become a paradigm in the psychology of education. Students of teaching and education in many countries have been taught that there are six universal developmental modes (stages or schemas) of moral thinking, which are an empirical fact verified by Kohlberg and his followers in hundreds of empirical studies. Thus, the Kohlberg theory must be true because it is empirically verified. Nevertheless, one might ask can there be empirical proof on transcendental (philosophical) theory of morality and its development. Jürgen Habermas was the first to note that Kohlberg’s theory of moral stages is a kind of rational reconstruction and that, as such, it cannot be empirically verified or...

Keywords

Civil Society Moral Development Moral Theory Moral Sense Categorical Imperative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Habermas, J. (1995). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Hegel, G. W. F. (1906). Das Leben Jesu. Jena: Eugen Diederichs. http://ia301530.us.archive.org/3/items/lebenjesuharmoni00hege/lebenjesuharmoni00hege.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  3. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hegel, G. W. F. (1979). System of ethical life and first philosophy of spirit. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hegel, G. W. F. (2001). Philosophy of right. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/prindex.htm. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  6. Hume, D. (2004). A treatise of human nature. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/342/0213_Bk.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  7. Hutcheson, F. (2004). An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue [1726]. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/858/Hutcheson_0449_EBk_v4.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  8. Kant, I. (1971). Prolegomena to any future metaphysic that will be able to present itself as a science. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, I. (1996). The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork of metaphysic of morals. In L. Pasternack (Ed.), Immanuel Kant: Groundwork the metaphysic of moral in focus. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kant, I. (2015). On education. http://ziveuniverzity.sk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Kant-On-Education.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  13. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development (The philosophy of moral development, moral stages and the idea of justice, Vol. I). San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Kontio, K. (2003). The idea of autarchy in Rousseau’s natural education: Recovering the natural harmony? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lähde, V. (2008). Rousseau’s rhetoric of “nature”. Tampere: Tampere University Press. http://www.villelahde.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Rousseaus_Rhetoric_of_Nature.pdf.
  16. Mandeville, B. (2004). The fable of the bees: Or, private vices, publick benefits, Vol. 1. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2462. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  17. Rousseau, J.-J. (2016a). A discourse on the sciences and arts. https://webmasters.byuh.edu/faculty/troysmith/BYUH/Classes/Philosophy/Rousseau%20–%20First%20Discourse.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  18. Rousseau, J.-J. (2016b). Discourse on inequality. https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/DiscourseonInequality.pdf879500092.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  19. Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper]. (2004). An inquiry concerning virtue or merit. http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/shaftesbury1711book1.pdf. Cited 9.1. 2016.
  20. Siegel, H. (1986). On using psychology to justify judgments of moral adequacy. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg – consensus and controversy (pp. 65–78). East Sussex: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, A. (1973). The wealth of nations. Suffolk: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.University of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland