|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Lawrence Kohlberg received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
Psychology or Philosophy?
Why is this article categorized under so many "philosopher" categories when he is a psychologist? --mporch 19:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- He specialized in the psychology of ethics; and ethics is considered a part of philosophy. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
So no one is going to mention angry feminists?
Feminists, such as Carol Gilligan, presented what is an essentially an archaic argument that women reason differently about moral situations in that they perceive morality in terms of nurturing/caring and self-sacrifice while men, in accordance to Kohlberg's theories, see such issues as matters of justice and equality. However, it can also be argued that these supposedly 'feminine' values represent a decidedly more Stage 5 level of moral reasoning. Values such as justice are more universal, and abstract, and better represent true moral reasoning, not merely the masculine perspective on morality.
Nope. Issues of justice, fairness, equality, are secondary in morality to actual felt consequences on the quality of life of feeling being (Def. c/o Carl F Oguss, student of Kohlberg and Gilligan). The theory which came to be called "The Principle of Preference" takes these consequences into consideration and lends itself to a structural developmental theory, though one has not yet been offered except in the conference papers and short articles of it's author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodease (talk • contribs) 08:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Questionable claims removed
I have removed two statements from the part on moral development, because I thought they are inaccurate. Please contact me on my talk page, and/or put the sentences back, if you think I'm wrong.
- In fact, one cannot even comprehend the reasoning of a stage higher than the one immediately above the present stage.
I do no think this is correct, and I cannot find this claim in my textbooks on psychology. I expect that a typical adult on the pre-conventional or conventional level will be able to understand the idea of universal ethical principles.
- In fact, higher level reasoning is 'cognitively attractive' because it makes more sense and resolves more conflicts.
Again, I cannot find support of these claims in secondary sources. According to material that I have read, Kohlberg's explanation of moral growth is that moral development occurs when people discover the limitations of their current way of reasoning. So, he does not say that moral development is the result of comparisons of the amount of conflicts that can be resolved using the various stages. Sietse 07:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree, many people can understand universal ethical but until they live through it and have to make decisions on that level they are not really in that level. Avenged Evanfold 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Life versus Work
I have re-written the article. It is once again about the life of Lawrence Kohlberg, instead of his work (which has separate pages, see Kohlberg's stages of moral development). Also gone are the criticisms, as it is about his life and not other peoples. Drop me a line if you're thinking it should be something else, I'm going to sort of 'adopt' this article. JoeSmack (talk) 22:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Yep - when I wrote out most of this I kept that in mind; in his stages of moral development article the work is quite extensive, but also mentions little of Kohlberg's biography. You'll find the converse here, purposefully. JoeSmack Talk 08:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why "Jewish"? in very first line
Was his religion/ethnicity vital to his work? I would not say so. As far as I know, he did not make anything of it himself. I noted in some earlier versions of this page, "Jewish" does not appear. I am not clear who added it or why. Tradescantia (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tradescantia
Response: I believe it mentions that he is Jewish because this article is not about his work. It is about him, as a person. And it is in the first line, because that is about his birth, his parents, where, when, and yes, what religious experience he was born into. Shoe (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)