Why might Kohlberg′s theory of moral development be so powerful and attractive? I do not deny that Kohlberg′s theory is fascinating. Note that the famous Heinz dilemma is just one example of the many dilemmas he and his associates constructed to examine moral reasoning. But the criticisms of his schemes are also broad and persuasive. He concluded that women tend to be at lower stages of moral reasoning than men. Wait, really? Or maybe they do not use the same purely based rationality scheme! Carol Gilligan has written a cogent and powerful critique of his model. Matthews criticisms also bear a careful look. Which I promise we will do. What worries me is when certain psychological models are presented as if they were scientific fact–or we simply assume they are because they are so helpful and explanatory. But maybe his model heavily privileges one type of moral thinking. And ask yourself, all of us, are all moral decisions as confusing as dilemmas are? How does Gareth Matthews argue that there are some flaws in how Kohlberg constructs his theory?
