在努力描述孩子通过哪个孩子实现认知发展的阶段,一些理论家认识到,由于并非所有推理都涉及频繁推动对儿童认知的研究的那种学校派生任务,他们应该试图描述推理的发展关于道德困境也是如此。最着名的理论家是劳伦斯·科尔伯格。科尔伯格总结了他对让彼得科的工作的理论,就像麦基等,他认为一个人的道德推理水平取决于该人的认知发展水平。为研究道德推理的过程,Kohlberg向他的研究参与者提出了一系列道德困境。其中一个最着名的如下:
在欧洲,一个女人从一种特殊的癌症中靠近死亡。医生认为可能会拯救她的药物。它是一种罕见的镭,是同一个城镇的药剂师最近发现过。药物的制造昂贵,但药剂师正在充电的是药物成本为他制作的十倍。他支付了200美元的镭,为小剂量收取了2,000美元的药物。生病的女人的丈夫海因斯,他知道他知道借钱,但他只能聚在一起约1000美元,这是它的成本中的一半。他告诉药剂师,他的妻子垂死,并让他卖得更便宜或让他稍后付钱。但药剂师说:“不,我发现了药物,我要从它那里赚钱。”所以Heinz绝望地闯入那个男人的商店,为他的妻子偷药。(Kohlberg和Elfenbein,1975)
然后将参与者询问Heinz是否应该偷药,然后是一系列额外的探测问题。Kohlberg对答案是“是”的答案不太感兴趣,而不是他在推理后追求答案的主题。
根据他的主题给予困境的回答,Kohlberg得出结论,人们通过三个广泛的道德推理进步,每个人都进一步细分为两个特定阶段(见下页面)。公约是社会一致的标准规则或惯例。Kohlberg的水平在象征性在道德推理方面彼此区分。The preconventional child has not yet internalized conventions as the source of right and wrong, whereas the conventional child (or adult) bases decisions on what is or isn’t expected, either by legal authorities (Stage 4) or by friends and family (Stage 3). In the postconventional level, the person has moved beyond social conventions as a source of morality, basing decisions on personal conscience rather than the expectations of others. In Kohlberg’s theory, these stages are universal and invariant, meaning that all children should move through the same stages in the same order. The timing of the stages is not invariant, however: people move through them at a different pace, and the final stage achieved will differ from person to person as well.
科尔伯格的道德发展的水平和阶段
对科尔伯格理论的重大批评是他基于男性受试者的数据,产生了一个专注于和奖励传统上男性的道德视角的理论。这可能有一些真相,因为他的原始研究是使用上课上课样本进行的,因此Carol Gilligan指出,在他的理论中缺少女性观点。In 1982 Gilligan proposed that Kohlberg’s higher stages at the conventional and post conventional levels reward a justice ethic, which she saw as primarily masculine, whereas a care ethic emphasizing concern for others and the maintenance of relationships, which Gilligan considered the source of women’s moral reasoning, was regarded in Kohlberg’s theory as less moral. Gilligan went so far as to propose a separate sequence of stages for women, based on a test that considered actual behavior in real-world moral dilemmas rather than hypothetical Kohlberg-style dilemmas that didn’t resemble anything the participants had actually been through.
Gilligan方法的问题是可能是不必要的。Kohlberg的舞台理论的大型测试主要是没有任何一致的性别差异,因为男女既可以遵循护理方向和司法方向,也不持续得分在较低水平。
Kohlberg阶段普遍适用的一个更大的问题涉及文化差异而不是性别差异。跨文化研究发现,人们在更多的农村,技术文化较少的进步更慢,达到了较低的终端,比理论是基于的美国样本。基于正义和自主权的科尔伯格奖励推理,但在一些社区社区和职责中被认为更为重要。
然而,在美国内部,数据为Kohlberg的阶段和普遍性提供了非常一致的支持,尽管通常通过阶段的进步速度比Kohlberg所设想的速度慢。在Kohlberg的原始研究参与者的二十年后,在十六岁之后没有找到1阶段的推理,但有些科目仍然在2阶段进入成年期。Stage 3 and Stage 4 reasoning were frequently used in adulthood, but only 10 percent of subjects in their early thirties used Stage 5 reasoning, and not a single one of Kohlberg’s original participants ever reached Stage 6. While this last fact has been the basis of some criticism of Kohlberg, it can also be seen as evidence that his theory provides a reasonably accurate description of human morality. A cursory glance at human history, and at the present state of the world, will suffice to demonstrate that the highest levels of moral development probably should be regarded as fairly rare.
参考:
- 吉利根,C.在不同的声音:心理学理论和妇女的发展。剑桥,马:哈佛大学出版社,1982年;
- Kohlberg,L.和Elfenbein,D。“发展道德判决关于死刑的道德判决。”美国秋天学报,45(1975年):614-639。