To begin with in brief what Kohlberg’s theory of moral development talks about then I will be looking at critically what critics have given their argument against his theory. Kohlberg has described six stages of moral development which are followings.
Obedience & Punishment: at stage 1 child thinks that if you do wrong thing, you will get punishment. For child rule seems to be made by elder or god.
Individualism & Exchange: at stage 2, children do not like to stick with any single authority. So they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others. Both stages come under pre-conventional level 1
Good Personal Relationship: at stages 3, children emphasize that a good person must carry certain good behavior, care and sympathy for others. They emphasize being a good person, which means having helpful motives toward people close to them.
Maintaining the Social Order; at stage 4, children think as member of the conventional society. They should follow its values, norms, and expectations. And also their concern change toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole so that society can exist in order.
Social Contract and Individual Rights: at this stage 5, people think that society is made of principles and laws, so principles and laws are social contract. They emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone right to enjoy and abide the principles prevailed in the society. So there is a struggle for personal right and choice.
Universal Principles: at this stage 6, people think that to achieve social justice, there are made some universal principles which govern people. So these principles of justice which guide us towards decisions based on an equal respect for all.
Kohlberg’s theory cannot be considered as a universal theory because there are many loopholes. Kohlberg has said in his theory only emphasis justice to the exclusion of other values, and so it may not deal with the arguments of those who value, beliefs other moral aspects of actions. Kohlberg's stages are not culturally neutral, as demonstrated by its application to a number of different cultures. On the other hand, they progress through the stages in the same order; individuals in different cultures seem to do so at different rates. Kohlberg believes that different cultures do inculcate different belief but his stages reflect to underlying modes of reasoning, rather than to those beliefs
Here, I would support my argument what Simpson (1974) says that Kohlberg’s stages are culturally biased. Simpson says that Kohlberg has developed a stage model based on the Western Philosophical tradition and has then applied this model to non-Western cultures without considering that they have different moral outlooks. Kohlberg’s theory does not fit and suitable in Indian context because India is nation of diverse culture and religion. People morality and culture differs from religion to religion. So we can see that Muslim people imbibe different morality and culture on the basis of their religion which quite different from Hindu cultures. I would like to give example from Usha Menon’s paper which talks that Shweder’s classification of the Hindu moral code as duty-based moral code. She says that Hindus cultures evaluate the rightness and wrongness of their own thoughts, words and action are based in different conceptuality. Accordingly each person is supposed to live by code that is determined by many factors. They are followings; gender, occupation, family role, caste affiliation, phase of life.
She talks that the ultimate goal for all Hindu, according to texts on moral codes, souls be moksha or liberation, release from the ever-ending cycle of rebirths and redeaths. Besides it, other three goals of life in this world, they are, pleasure and the fulfillment of sensual desires(kama), profit and material prosperity (earth) and the performance of the religious and moral duties and rituals of everyday life( dharma).
She speaks that everyday practice is necessary for Hindus culture. She writes that self refinement makes upper caste Oriya Hindus to give attention to the correct performance of daily practice ( nityakarma). These are followings; defeating twice a day, bathing after each defecation, bathing every time after returning to home from any outside of works, offering prayers to their God in the morning and again before the evening meal and bathing before eating a meal, reciting everyday prayers . food is supposed to served by eldest wives of the family and in orthodox Brahman family people prefer to eat only at a time and in the kitchen either the room which is located in the center of the house so that they cannot encounter the inauspicious sounds of widows or untouchable people who works as scavenger.
Usha Menon also talks about moral emotions; lajya is one of the primary moral emotions which can be described by English word shame. It is cultivated by the Hindus upper caste as a sign of morality. Lajya also can be translated as modesty, being civilized, being respectful to elders, and seniors and not encroaching on others. According to her in indigenous understandings of lajya is considered to be a primary moral emotion because it teaches people how to behave morally, how to show consideration to others. It also shows how to regulate their conduct so that harmony can be maintained in the society. In this regards she gives example of the story that is told in the temple town of Bhubaneswar about the goddess Kali and her experience of lajya. Kali is regarded as the most violent and bloodthirsty manifestation of the Great Goddess of Hinduism. She is shown with her right foot placed squarely on the chest of a supine Siva, her husband and her tongue hanging out.
Another moral emotion she mentions that is Kshama ( forgiveness) given due consideration in Hinduism it is defined as ‘ a willingness to abandon one’s right to resentment, negative judgment and indifferent behavior towards one who unjustly injured us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity and even love toward him or her.
Shweder, Mahapatra, and Miller (1987) assert in Usha Menon paper that conceptuality of morality is pervaded in Hinduism thinking. They say that American tradition is different from Hundus tradition and morality. They give an example of upper caste households of the young married women are told to be without lajya only with respect to the women of the conjugal family but she cannot behave same with the men. On the other hand she is advised to be modest with older men of the family, the husband’s father, his elder brother.
In Hundus religion, a Brahman widow in the temple town spends her days reading from the sacred books, refrains from wearing colored clothes and from eating non-vegetarian food because she is atoning fire sin of allowing her husband to die. According to Hindu ways of thinking, a married woman holds her husband’s life and his physical well-being within the palms of her hands. The source of her power over her husband’s life and his health can be achieved through her chastity of self- refinement. If person of the family is doing prayer in room called puja-ghar where child would not be scolded but child creating dirt during then child will be scolded. Later child learns that whether this behavior is appropriate or not depends entirely on the context. Therefore, it seems that the aspects of the life in the temple town that encourage Hindu moral understandings.
Another argument is given by Carol Gilligan (19977, 1982) who is critique of Kohlberg. Gilligan charges that Kohlberg's theory was earlier developed based on empirical research using only male participants. Gilligan argues that it does not properly describe the concerns of women. She observes that Kohlberg’s stages were taken exclusively from interviews with males. She has argued that Kohlberg’s theory is sex-biased. She also argues that the stages reflect a decidedly male orientation. For males, advanced moral thought revolves around rules, rights and abstract principles. For women, Gilligan says, morality centers not on rights and rules but on interpersonal relationships and the ethics of compassion and care. Women’s morality is more contextualized and it is tied to real, ongoing relationships rather than abstract solution to hypothetical dilemma. Gilligan's theory of moral development does not focus on the value of justice. She has developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring.
Gilligan’s morality of caring framework, the argument is made for the need to treat issues of caring rather than to limit the scope of morality to the prohibition-oriented issues of justice. She gives an example that girls are often seen as developing a connected sense of self and associated morality of caring. On the contrary, we find that males are seen attached to their mothers. They are assumed to identify with their fathers and developing an autonomous sense of self and associated morality of justice. According Gilligan there are two types of moral perspectives,’’ all people are born into a situation of inequality and no child survives in the absence of adult connection. Since everyone is vulnerable both to oppression and to abandonment, two stories about morality recur in human experience’’
Here I would give some example for support from Joan G. Miller paper who talks that moral development differences on people cultural psychology. To give an example, whether abortion is considered a moral violation or matter of the woman’s personal judgment depends in part on culturally and sub culturally variable conception.
Another argument can be raised against to Kohlberg’s Heinz moral dilemma (stealing the drug) on the contrary we can find that in Buddhist conception of karma during childhood, children are told that negative karma would lead to bad result. For example, ‘’if you create negative actions (bad karma) ,then you will become sick or die and when you die ,then you will go to the animal world or hell world’’.
Another similar example can be seen because cultural work reflects cross-cultural variation exists in injustice reasoning contrast. Miller describes in his paper comparing moral judgment of orthodox Hindu Indian practice of sati custom. According to orthodox U.S people think that treatment of such behavior as an issue of moral harm, whereas orthodox Hindu Indians consider it as virtuous behavior. They believe,’’ sati is morally right… The wife dies with her husband in order to preserve her chastity and show her devotion to her husband.’’
Miller paper gives argument that apart from everyday practices and modes of social interaction that impact on children’s development of moral outlook. Although it also it provide insights into the affective and cultural grounded processes by which moral outlooks change at a societal level that affects the outlooks of adults.
Conclusion
Therefore, I can conclude by saying that Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is not universal because there are many reasons. First, Kohlberg's stages are not culturally neutral, as demonstrated by its application to a number of different cultures so it means his theory is culturally biased. Since, Simpson argues that Kohlberg has developed a stage model based on the Western Philosophical tradition and has then applied this model to non-Western cultures without considering that they have different moral outlooks. Second, according to Gilligan, Kohlberg’s theory is sex biased in which he had taken earlier developed theory based on empirical research using only male participants. Third, Shedder, Mahapatra, and Miller (1987) assert in Usher Menon paper that conceptuality of morality and American tradition is different from Hindus tradition and morality.
. References
Joan G. Miller; Cultural Psychology of Moral development.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Kohlberg’s; Stages of Moral Development
Usher Menon;Morality and Context: A Study of Hindu Understandings
