David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Educational Theory 60 (2):167-188 (2010)
Philosophers tend to assume that theoretical frameworks in psychology suffer from conceptual confusion and that any influence that philosophy might have on psychology should be positive. Going against this grain, Dan Lapsley and Darcia Narváez attribute the Kohlbergian paradigm's current state of marginalization within psychology to Lawrence Kohlberg's use of ethical theory in his model of cognitive moral development. Post‐Kohlbergian conceptions of moral psychology, they advance, should be wary of theoretical constructs derived from folk morality, refuse philosophical starting points, and seek integration with literatures in psychology, not philosophy. In this essay, Bruce Maxwell considers and rejects Lapsley and Narváez's diagnosis. The Kohlbergian paradigm's restricted conception of the moral domain is the result of a selective reading of one tendency in ethical theorizing . The idea that moral psychology may find shelter from normative criticism by avoiding ethics‐derived models overlooks the deeper continuity between “ethical theory” and “psychological theory.”The confusion and barrenness of psychology is not to be explained by calling it a “young science”; its state is not comparable with that of physics, for instance, in its beginnings. For in psychology there are experimental methods and conceptual confusion. The existence of the experimental method makes us think we have the means of solving the problems which trouble us; though problem and method pass one another by.1
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul Lewis (2010). The Emerging Comprehensive Moral Psychology of Darcia Narvaez. Tradition and Discovery 37 (3):9-18.
James R. Rest, Darcia Narvaez, Stephen J. Thoma & Muriel J. Bebeau (2000). A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to Morality Research. Journal of Moral Education 29 (4):381-395.
Daniel K. Lapsley (1996). Moral Psychology. Westview Press.
Kristján Kristjánsson (2010). Educating Moral Emotions or Moral Selves: A False Dichotomy? Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 (4):397-409.
Patricia J. Craig & Sharon Nodie Oja (2012). Moral Judgement Changes Among Undergraduates in a Capstone Internship Experience. Journal of Moral Education 42 (1):43-70.
Timothy Chappell (2009). Ethics Beyond Moral Theory. Philosophical Investigations 32 (3):206-243.
Wendy Barger (2003). Moral Language in Newspaper Commentary: A Kohlbergian Analysis. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 18 (1):29 – 43.
Bruno S. Sergi & William T. Bagatelas (eds.) (2005). Ethical Implications of Post-Communist Transition Economics and Politics in Europe. Iura Edition.
Robin Snell (1995). Does Lower-Stage Ethical Reasoning Emerge in More Familiar Contexts? Journal of Business Ethics 14 (12):959 - 976.
Winston Nesbitt (1983). Wilson on Kohlberg and Understanding Reasons. Journal of Moral Education 12 (1):14-17.
D. C. Phillips & Jennie Nicolayev (1978). Kohlbergian Moral Development: A Progressing or Degenerating Research Program? Educational Theory 28 (4):286-301.
Claudia Wiesemann (2010). The Moral Challenge of Natality: Towards a Post-Traditional Concept of Family and Privacy in Reprogenetics. The New Genetics and Society 29:61-71.
James A. Ryan (1998). Moral Philosophy and Moral Psychology in Mencius. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):47 – 64.
Raymond de Vries (2011). The Uses and Abuses of Moral Theory in Bioethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (4):419-430.
Added to index2011-05-24
Total downloads8 ( #187,385 of 1,413,356 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #94,237 of 1,413,356 )
How can I increase my downloads?