Kohlberg vs. Gilligan

     For the past two classes, we have been studying the difference between Kohlberg and Gilligan's perspectives on moral development.  Personally, I concur with Giligan.  I believe that in excluding the caring side of morality, you might, in fact be able to count such people as Hitler and Stalin as postconventional moral reasoners simply because they steadfastly hold to their moral beliefs and make decisions based on these moral beliefs without allowing external factors or social opinion to influence their decisions.  Yet, one could in no way call these individuals ultimately good members of society, a characteristic that I personally would commonly associate with a high capacity for moral reasoning.  If, however, you consider care as a factor in moral reasoning, you can in no way even remotely condone their behaviour as moral, as they are each responsible for creating a skewed morality among their citizens resulting in the deaths of millions. 

     I suppose with this reasoning, my  next question would be simply to ask if a sort of reverse progression through the stages is possible; where the moral reasoning process becomes more advanced, but the person chooses to manipulate this greater capacity for moral reasoning into a conscious decision to disobey the law or exploit others.  Perhaps this perversion of moral reasoning would explain sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors.
      Anyhow, back in my grade eleven English class, I wrote a poem that I feel somewhat illustrates different stages of moral reasoning, as well as my belief that genuine concern for others is nescessary in evaluating moral reasoning. 

The Beggar and the Gentleman

A Gentleman of noble birth
And charity of great renown
Surrounded by his many friends
Was one day strolling through the town.

And with a light and jovial air
He wholly held his troupe entranced
With takes of his kindness shown
In nearly every place they glanced.

While passing by the village clock
A follower of his did note 
A beggar, seated at its foot
Garbed in a stained and tattered coat

The gentleman then did approach
In an angelic, grand display.
Bestowing on the gaunt young man
A small sum, then he went his way.

His followers then did exclaim
The Gentleman did truely care.
In aiding even that vile man,
They thought his pure beyond compare.

Yet engraved within their hearts
Where alone their Maker saw
The beggar bore a golden cross,
The Gentleman a swastika.

     The gentleman in the poem, although he may appear altruistic and moral, truly functions at the level of a "nice boy" as he only displays moral behavior for the sake of the admiration he receives from his followers.  Yet, I do indicate in my poem that this benevolence, because it is not accompanied by real compassion, does not make him a good person in the least; he bestows only a small sum when he has much he could give, and does not implicate himself any more than nescessary to complete his simple transaction.  I suppose that this is my picture of morality.  I believe that no matter how developed your reasoning becomes, it is indeed the level for which you genuinely care for others that determines your morality.  In this sense, I completely agree with Carol Gilligan.
-Rachel