Researchers present a Heinz-style dilemma to participants and ask them to justify their answers. Participant A says, "He shouldn't steal because he could go to jail." Participant B says, "He should steal because human life is worth more than property, and laws that fail to protect life are unjust." Participant C says, "He shouldn't steal because good people follow the rules."
Carol Gilligan's main critique of Kohlberg's framework is that it:
- A
Fails to use longitudinal data
- B
Confuses moral reasoning with religious belief
- C
Overestimates children's reasoning ability
- Dcheck_circle
Underemphasizes an ethic of care and relationships often found in women's reasoning
Explanation
Gilligan argued that Kohlberg's stages, derived primarily from male samples, privileged a justice orientation and undervalued an ethic of care emphasizing relationships and responsibility, which she observed more often in women's moral reasoning.