SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 28

Some critiques towards kohlberg s moral development theory

Kohlberg'in ahlak gelişim teorisine yönelik bazı eleştiriler

Semra ÇİNEMRE
Pages
69–99
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the end of this study, it is proposed to examine Kohlberg s theory with serious criticisms, primarily theoretical, practical, religious as well as many other aspects.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Kohlberg s moral development theory is accepted by scholars throughout the world and has been an important source for many academic studies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, this theory has been seriously criticized by western moral educators.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the end of this study, it is proposed to examine Kohlberg s theory with serious criticisms, primarily theoretical, practical, religious as well as many other aspects.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Kohlberg s moral development theory is accepted by scholars throughout the world and has been an important source for many academic studies. However, this theory has been seriously criticized by western moral educators. Upon these critiques, Kohlberg and his colleagues defended their theory and then developed some new theories of moral development based on the previous theory. Nevertheless, since the establishment of this theory, its critical aspects have been neglected by Turkish scholars. While some studies have been done in Turkey, they are mostly related to the stages of moral development. In fact, in order to understand this theory better and develop more alternative moral theories based on this theory, all critiques that have been done on this theory should also be known. Upon this idea, it is the aim of this article to reveal the problematic aspects of Kohlberg s moral development theory stemming from the criticisms of this theory. In this regard, the works of especially Kohlberg and his contemporaries have been scanned and the method of document analysis has been applied. At the end of this study, it is proposed to examine Kohlberg s theory with serious criticisms, primarily theoretical, practical, religious as well as many other aspects.

Özet

Özet- Kohlbergin ahlak gelişim teorisi, uluslararası düzeyde kabul gören ve pek çok çalışmaya temel teşkil eden bir teoridir. Bununla birlikte teori, özellikle Batıda, ken- disine meydan okuyan ciddi eleştirilerle de karşı karşıya kalmıştır. Hatta bu eleştirilere karşı savunma eleştirileri yapılmış ve tüm eleştirilerdeki vurgulardan hareketle yeni bazı teoriler daha geliştirilmiştir. Ancak tüm bu gelişmeler Türkiyedeki literatüre henüz gi- rememiştir. Nitekim ülkemizde Kohlbergin teorisi üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, genellik- le ahlak gelişim basamaklarıyla sınırlı kalmış, teorinin eleştiriye açık yönleri göz ardı edilmiştir. Oysa gerek teorinin daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi gerekse bu teoriden hareketle alternatif ahlak teorilerinin geliştirilebilmesi için bu kapsamdaki belli başlı eleştiriler de bilinmelidir. Bu düşünceden yola çıkarak, makalede Kohlbergin ahlak gelişim teorisine yöneltilen eleştirilerden hareketle, teorinin sorunlu yönlerini ortaya koymak amaçlan- mıştır. Bu doğrultuda, özellikle Kohlberg ve çağdaşlarının eserleri taranarak doküman incelemesi yöntemine başvurulmuştur. Araştırma sonunda, Kohlbergin teorisinin başta teorik, pratik ve dini olmak üzere pek çok açıdan ciddi eleştirilerle karşı karşıya olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİNEMRE, S. (2022). Some critiques towards kohlberg s moral development theory. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 28, 69–99. https://ajindex.com/articles/487031

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Arnold, M. L. (2000). Stage, sequence, and sequels: Changing conceptions of mo- rality, Post-Kohlberg. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 365-383.
  2. Aron, I. E. (1977). Moral philosophy and moral education: A critique of Kohlberg’s theory. The School Review, 85(2), 197-217.
  3. Blum, L. A. (1988). Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for moral theory. Ethics, 98(3), 472-491.
  4. Boyd, D. (1980). The rawls connection. B. Munsey (Ed.), Moral development, mor- al education, and Kohlberg, (ss. 185-213).
  5. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.
  6. Brook, R. (1987). Justice and the golden rule: A commentary on some recent work of Lawrence Kohlberg. Ethics, 97(2), 363-373.
  7. Brown, R., & Herrnstein, R. (1975).
  8. Psychology, Boston: Little, Brown. Bussey K., & Maughan, B. (1982). Gender differences in moral reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 701-706.
  9. Chazan, B. (1985). Contemporary approaches to moral education: analyzing alter- native theories. New York: Teachers College Press.
  10. Clouse, B. (1991). Adolescent moral development and sexuality. D. Ratcliff & J. A. Davies (Eds.), Handbook of Youth Ministry, (ss. 178-213).
  11. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press.
  12. Cüceloğlu, D. (2009). İnsan ve Davranışı. (18. Baskı). İstanbul:
  13. Remzi Kitabevi.
  14. Damico, A. J. (1982). The sociology of justice: Kohlberg and Milgram. Political Theory, 10(3), 409-433.
  15. Flanagan, O. J., Jr. (1982). A reply to Lawrence Kohlberg. Ethics, (Special Issue: Symposium on Moral Development), 92(3), 529-532.
  16. Flanagan, O. J., Jr., & Jackson, K. (1987). Justice, care and gender: The Kohlberg- Gilligan debate revisited. Ethics, 97(3), 622-637.
  17. Fowler, J. (1980). Moral stages and the development of faith. B. Munsey (Ed.), Moral Development, Moral Education, and Kohlberg, (ss. 130-160).
  18. Bir- mingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press. Freeman S. J. M., & Giebink, J. W. (1979). Moral judgment as a function of age, sex, and stimulus. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 102, 43-47.
  19. Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 8, 133-142.
  20. Garwood, S. G., Levine, D. W., & Ewing, Linda. (1980). Effect of Protoganist’s sex on assessing gender differences in moral reasoning. Developmental Psychol- ogy, 16, 677-678.
  21. Gerolds, L. R. (1981). Kohlberg and moral education: A more comprehensive out- l