第三十七輯 - 1996-03-31

郭耳堡[L. Kohlberg]的道德認知發展論評析

Criticisms on Kohlberg's Cognitive Moral Developmental Therory

作　者：
蘇永明 /
關鍵字：
道德認知、道德階段、郭耳堡 / Moral cognition、Moral stages、L. kohlberg
  • 摘要
  • 英文摘要
  • 參考文獻
  • 全文下載
本文系從多元文化的角度來批評郭耳堡的道德認知發展論。指出不可能有所謂普遍、客觀的道德發展階段。這些發展階段實際上只是郭耳堡自己建立起來的邏輯建構物，在量的方面和質的方面都逐步提昇，可是於實際情境中卻未必更利他。且郭耳堡又犯了我族中心主義，以西方近代才發展出來的權利觀念和社會組成的契約理論做為第五和第六階，根本就是假客觀之名，行主觀之實。郭耳堡又過於強調道德判斷在德行中的角色，以道德認知為「結構性的整體」而形成所謂的「道德階段」，這在實證上都碰到困難而無法成立。其第六階段﹝最高階﹞也遭遇了取消又還原的波折，因為實在不容易找到所謂最高階段，結果卻以羅爾斯的「正義論」為架構，來建立具有可逆性的道德思考，因為如此才能客觀。可是這個階段還是以人盡自私自利為假設，而較為利他的思考模式卻放不進他的道德階段，已能歸入宗教層次，或是”軟性”的第七階段。因此，郭耳堡的最高階段在境界上實在不高。而「正義社區」的研究，在理論上以組織嚴密的程度來判定組織的道德層次，這很容易導致極權組織較有道德的繆誤。由於在理論上的矛盾，使得郭耳堡在實證時面臨了許多困難。但郭耳堡在原先實證上的缺點也導致理論之一再修正﹝如第六階﹞。但郭耳堡只是根據康德論理學來建構其道德認知論，而康德的理論只是道德哲學之一，可是他卻以之來建構全面性的大型理論，以致破綻連連。
Based on pluralism， this article has strong criticisms on Kohlberg’s moral developmental theory. It denies that there are universal and objective stages of moral development. These stages are logical construct of Kohlberg’s. There are quantitative and qualitative increases in later stages， however， the later stages are not necessarily more altruistic. These is ethocentricism in Kohlberg’s theory because he takes the theory of rights and social contract theory of the Western as the highest stages (5 and 6). Kohlberg also values too much on the role of moral cognition which becomes an‘organic whole’ and then， moral stage. This assumption encounter difficulties in empirical empirical research which fails to verify. The sixth stage of the theory， the highest stage， also met suspension and revisions. The basic problem is that it is impossible to find the highest stage of moral development in pluralistic society. Kohlberg based his theory on “A theory of justice” of reasoning is not altruistic enough because they presupposed that the individual is a “rationally egoistic bargaining player”. The more altruistic stage cannot be fitted into Kohlberg’s stages， it can only be allocated into a “soft” seventh stage. On the study of ‘just community’ which leads to an absurd conclusion because he only depends on the totalitarian groups more than democratic ones. The inconsistencies in theory have raised many difficulties in empirical verification， and also the defects in empirical research make the theory vulnerable. On the whole， Kohlberg constructs his theory solely on Kantian ethics which is only one of moral theories. But the problem is that he wants to build up a comprehensive one. Therefore， it is vary difficult to defend his theory.