- 1 -

NNN NOOO ORRR RAAA Alll l DDD DEEE EVVV VEEE Elll lOOO OPPP PNNN NEEE ENNN NTTT T TTT THHH HEEE EOOO ORRR RYYY Y::: : AAA A RRR Rlll lTTT Tlll lOOO OUUU UEEE E OOO Olll l lll lTTT TSSS S
KKK KAAA ANNN NTTT Tlll lAAA ANNN N PPP PRRR REEE ESSS SUUU UPPP PPPP POOO OSSS Slll lTTT Tlll lOOO ONNN NSSS S
RRR Rooo obbb beee errr rttt t lll l.. . . aaa ammm mppp pbbb beee e
emson Unversty
JJJ Jooo ohhh hnnn n hhh haaa ammm mbbb beee errr rsss s hhh hrrr r sss sttt tooo oppp phhh heee errr r
oege o Educaton, Unversty o Guam, Nangao, Guam
DDD Deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt taaa a RRR Reee evvv v eee ewww w,,, , +++ + (+), +-(; (Narch +,,)
ontemporary mora deveopment theory oows pathways ad down
n the mora phosophy o lmmanue Kant (+;(-+8o(). lor Kant, mora acton
conssts o dutu adherence to orma rues, and has nothng to do wth the
pursut o persona goas. lndeed, one can be sure that ones acton s mora
ony t s done out o duty and goes aganst a o ones ncnatons. Some
contemporary mora deveopmentasts (or nstance, Kohberg and Ture) are
ormasts: they draw rom Kant the concepton o mora rues as
unversazabe categorca mperatves, recognzabe by ther orma eatures,
that pertan to soca ssues. Others (e.g., Esenberg) are atrusts: they draw
on Kants nsstence that mora acton s nherenty se-sacrca, though they
aso nsst that mora acts be speccay motvated by the desre to benet
others. ve subject both ormasm and atrusm to thoroughgong crtque.
Both postons dene the mora doman too narrowy, eavng out questons o
prvate moraty ke beng honest wth onese, they cannot accommodate
other prncped conceptons o moraty, ke eudamonsm, that reject ther
Kantan presuppostons, and they cannot answer the queston vhy be
mora' vhether mpersona or ant-persona, they negect the persona. ve
propose a character-based redenton o the mora doman that rentegrates
mora deveopment wth the deveopment o the se and o vaues, takng
advantage o the nsghts nto these areas o deveopment aorded by the
nteractvst ramework. ve concude by descrbng the chaenges that a truy
adequate account o mora deveopment w have to meet, and the
contrbutons that eudamonsm can make to meetng those chaenges.
Nora deveopment theory presumes that moras are ...
excusvey other-
H Godsmth, by chaengng a cogntve deveopmentast to make a coherent
statement about soca deveopment, provded the nta mpetus or ths artce. The
second author rescued the artce ater the rst author was ed astray by the temptatons
o human actors research. ve woud ke to thank Nark Bckhard, Terry Brown, Tom
Hoener, Peter Kahn, Neane Ken, Joe lachance, Dane lapsey, John NcHoskey, Dave
Noshman, larry Nucc, Davd Potts, Doug Rasmussen, Nke Rche, Dane Robnson, Grover
vhtehurst, and a o the partcpants n the lberty lund ooquum on lndvduasm and
ommuntaransmnot to menton two anonymous revewersor comments and
dscussons. None o them are to be bamed or the outcome. Address correspondence to
Robert l. ampbe, Department o Psychoogy, (+oA Brackett Ha, emson Unversty,
emson S ,(-+, ema: campberQcemson.edu.
- 2 -
regardng, and never se-regardng (Veatch, +,8o, p. +,). lt nherts ths
presumpton rom academc mora phosophy, where the excuson o
persona goas rom moraty s wdey accepted as vad wthout urther
argument. lor nstance, A word o Robnson rusoes has no need or a
moraty and no use or one (Baer, +,8, p. +). Or athough egosm s
ogcay consstent, t s ncompatbe wth what we ntutvey regard as
the mora pont o vew. The sgncance o egosm phosophcay s not
as an aternatve concepton o rght but as a chaenge to any such
concepton (Raws, +,;+, p. +).
lrom ths presumpton that the pursut o prvate goas acks mora
sgncance, conceptons o moraty can be deveoped n two drectons.
The ormast approach emphaszes the cam that moraty s ony reevant
to soca ssues. lormast approaches take ndvdua goas and
preerences, consdered nonmora n themseves, and by terng them
through orma constrants, derve mora rues that are hed to be bndng
on our soca behavor. The atrust approach rerans rom ormazng but
stresses the convcton that the pursut o our persona goas has no mora
worth. Peope are enjoned to perorm dutes that may conct wth ther
goas, especay se-sacrca acts or the benet o others. Both
ormasm and atrusm stem rom the mora phosophy o lmmanue Kant
(+;8/+,,), who was the rst major advocate o ethca mpersonasm
and even ant-personasm the rgd separaton o moraty rom the
pursut o persona goas. And both are we represented n contemporary
mora deveopment research.
lnuenta though t mght be n contemporary dscourse, the
phosophca bass rom whch mora deveopment theorsts have been
workng s dangerousy narrow. Non-Kantan conceptons o moraty have
exsted throughout hstory, are prevaent n other cutures, and contnue to
exst wthn our own. ln ths crtque we w rey prmary on Arstotean
conceptons to umnate the nadequacy o Kantansm as a oundaton or
the study o mora deveopment. ve chose them n part because o ther
uncompromsng rejecton o Kants mpersonasm. On Arstotes vew,
the purpose o moraty s to enabe ndvduas to ve the good e, to
actuaze ther potentas as human bengs, to acheve eudamona.
Though eudamona s oten transated as happness, cauton s requred
because happness s oten equated wth mere satsacton o desres.
Accordng to a contemporary denton, eudamona s the eengs
accompanyng behavor n the drecton o, and consstent wth, ones true
potenta (vaterman, +,8+). Present-day Arstoteans (Den Uy, +,,+,
Rasmussen 8 Den Uy, +,,+) oten use the phrase human ourshng.
Athough the soca mpcatons o the Arstotean approach shoud not be
negected, t s prmary concerned wth how to ve ones own e.
ve w argue that the ormast varety o Kantansm has
artcay restrcted the range o mora probems studed, and s ncapabe
o expanng how non-Kantan orms o mora reasonng, conduct, or
personaty woud deveop. The atrust varety mposes ts own artca
restrctons on the mora doman, ten-
- 3 -
dentousy downgrades non-atrustc judgments as moray mmature, and
propounds a concepton o prosoca behavor that s ncoherent n theory
and dangerous n practce.
ve begn wth an account o lmmanue Kants mora phosophy
and ts egacy to contemporary mora deveopment theory.
TTT Thhh heee e KKK Kaaa annn nttt t aaa annn n lll leee eggg gaaa accc cyyy y
ln content, Kants ethca system s a contnuaton o hrstan
regous teachngs, speccay those o +8th century Petsm, the receved
vew n hs tme and pace. Kant dd not consder hmse an nnovator n
ths respect, he assumed that the ordnary person aready knew that he or
she had a duty to be honest, ndustrous, chartabe, truthu, and so orth.
Hs nnovaton ay n hs concepton o mora rues and o ther orgn.
Accordng to Kant (+;8/+,,, +;,;/+,,+), the ony mora acts are
those done out o duty. Such acts must be done, regardess o the
crcumstances or ther consequences or the actor and others, because they
are nherenty obgatory. By contrast, acts done n pursut o ones own
goas, acts done out o desre or ncnaton, have no mora reevance or
mora worth. The ony tme that one can be sure that an act s done rom
duty, hence s truy mora, s when the act goes aganst ones ncnatons.
lt s a duty to preserve ones e, and moreover everyone has a drect
ncnaton to do so. But or that reason the oten anxous care whch most
men take o t has no ntrnsc worth, and the maxm o so dong has no
mora mport.... But adverstes and hopeess sorrow competey take
away the resh or e, an unortunate man, strong n sou, s ndgnant
rather than despondent or dejected over hs ate and wshes or death, and
yet preserves hs e wthout ovng t and rom nether ncnaton nor ear
but rom dutythen hs maxm has a mora mport (Kant, +;8/+,,, pp.
,;-,8).
Parae to the dstncton between duty and ncnaton s Kants
dstncton between two knds o mora rues: categorca and hypothetca
mperatves. Hypothetca mperatves recommend actons as means to
some goa: l you want to acheve X, you shoud do Y. Pror to Kant, a
mora systems conssted, at east n part, o hypothetca mperatves. A
speced some utmate end or human acton, to whch ther rues were
supposed to specy means. Greek eudamonsm hed that one ought to
behave n certan ways to actuaze ones potenta as a human beng.
hrstan moraty was understood as condtons or attanng eterna e n
the aterword and avodng dvne punshment. lrom Kants standpont,
however, hypothetca mperatves cannot be mora, because they woud
make mora behavor condtona on ncnatons, on persona goas and
desres, on somethng emprca. He reserved speca scorn or
eudamonsm, or the prncpe o happness (Kant, +;,;/+,,+, p. ;8).
Emprca prncpes are not at a suted to serve as the bass or mora
aws... the prncpe o ones own happness s the most objectonabe o
a... ths prncpe supports moraty wth ncentves whch undermne t
and destroy a ts submty, or t puts the
- 4 -
motves to vrtue and those to vce n the same cass, teachng us ony to
make a better cacuaton whe obteratng the specc derence
between them (Kant, +;8/+,,, p. ((). Hypothetca mperatves can
be practca advce, or counses o prudence, but not mora rues. ln
reducng prudence (practca wsdom, phroness) to mere expedent
cacuaton and thrustng t outsde the mora doman, Kant brought about
the na downa o what or Arstote was a centra mora vrtue (Den
Uy, +,,+).
Ony categorca mperatves, whch are uncondtona on the
actors context or on the consequences o the act, can be commands to
duty and thereore mora rues. ategorca mperatves have the orm:
You must do X. Accordng to Kant, the cruca orma test or the mora
reevance o a categorca mperatve s whether t s unversazabe. Act
ony on that maxm by whch you can at the same tme w that t shoud
become a unversa aw (Kant, +;8/+,,, p. (+).
Kant dstngushed sharpy, too, between autonomy and
heteronomy o the w. A mora system that makes mora rues
condtona on anythng except the ndvduas w s sad to be
heteronomous. Heteronomous morates ncude those that are based on
externa authorty, on peasng God, obeyng the State, on makng others
happy, or on not oendng others. But, more broady, they ncude any
moraty that recommends actons to acheve goas o any knd. Kant hed
that when a person pursues a goa, that persons w s determned by
natura causes, and s thereore not truy autonomous. Truy autonomous
moraty s sad to be based on ones w makng rues or tse, wthout
regard or any natura cause at a (ncudng na causes, or goas).
The maxms or rues o duty, startng wth the basc categorca
mperatve, are mposed on each person by hs or her w. Kant meant
somethng very derent by w, however, than we do n everyday
usage. l the rues o duty were mposed by our own ws, we woud have
chosen them, woud know that we had chosen them, and woud
conscousy want to oow them. O course, most o us have done no such
thng.
Kant got around these dcutes by recourse to hs dstncton
between the phenomena and the noumena. The w as we know t,
whether through ntrospecton or through the data and arguments o
emprca psychoogy, s merey the w as we experence t, the
phenomena w. The phenomena w, ke anythng ese n the word as
we know t (the phenomena word), s governed by natura causes. Yet
mora rues, or Kant, cannot be condtona on natura causes. The w
that commands us to duty s thereore not the w as we know t, the
phenomena w, but rather the w as t s n tse, apart rom our means
o knowng t, the noumena w.
By denyng that mora rues coud have any emprca bass,
ncudng goas, Kant entanged hmse n nsuperabe dcutes. oud
the noumena w actuay cause anyones actons' ln Kants
epstemoogy, causaty resuts rom appyng the categores o the
understandng and pertans ony to the phenomena word, not the
noumena word. By restrctng hmse to ecent causaty, n
- 5 -
whch one event causes another event, Kant gave a pausbe bass to hs
Thrd Antnomy. The Antnomy s the supposedy paradoxca queston
whether a seres o events can have an absoute begnnng, uncondtona
on any pror event. ln the ream o human acton, he camed to avod ths
quandary by burcatng the w nto phenomena and noumena
components.
Our w as we understand t, the phenomena w, s subject to the
aws o ecent causaty as mposed by our categores, and consequenty
s not ony determned by other emprca causes, but s subject to the
nnte regress o the Thrd Antnomy. The w as t s n tse, the
noumena w, s out o tme and beyond causaty because the categores
do not appy to t. Athough ths move exempts the noumena w rom
the Thrd Antnomy, t does so as a steep prce, because Kant aso wanted
to mantan that the noumena w somehow aects our thought and
behavor.
+
Kant ted hmse n even tghter knots. oud there be such a thng
as a noumena w' Does each person have one or many' Or s there a
snge noumena somethng-or-other o whch our ndvdua ws are mere
manestatons'

Unty, puraty, possbty and reaty are a categores,
so ony enttes n the phenomena word can be propery thought o as
objects, or as snguar or pura, as exstng, even as beng possbe.
lnaccessbe to the categores o the understandng, the noumena w (to
speak ess tendentousy, the noumena we-know-not-what) shoud,
accordng to Kants own epstemoogy, be regarded as uttery unknowabe,
and the proper course woud have been to mantan a respectu sence
about t.
rtcs ke Netzsche (+88,/+,8) and Rand (+,() have ponted
out, however, that the noumena w s ndspensabe to Kant precsey
because there cannot be any evdence or argument or ts exstence,
precsey because there can be no way o knowng what t s ke. ln Kants
vew we cannot avod thnkng n terms o deas o pure reason, or
makng cams about noumena enttes, whose purported exstence cannot
be reuted because they are beyond the categores. lrom the crtcs
standpont, Kant has thrown up an obscurantst shed to protect hrstan
moraty rom ratona crtcsm o hrstan bees. The noumena w, n
Kants phosophy, shares ts protecton rom ratona examnaton wth
other senstve concepts ke those o God, reedom o the w, and the
mmortaty o the sou. l have ound t necessary to deny knowedge,
n order to make room or ath. The dogmatsm o metaphyscs s the
source o that unbee, aways very dogmatc, whch wars aganst
moraty (Kant, +;8+/+,, p. B xxx).
Kants concepton o an autonomous moratythat s, moraty
based on

1
By attributing freedom to the noumenal will and determination by antecedent
events to the phenomenal will, Kant offered a defense of free will that did it
enormous damage, rendering it unintelligible and wholly outside the natural order.
That is a topic for another discussion, howeveras is Kants unduly narrow
conception of causality.
- 6 -
the aws and commandments ssued by the supposedy ree noumena
waso deserves a bre comment. Autonomy, as we normay speak o
t n psychoogy, mpes ndependence o mnd and reyng on ones own
resources (Petrovch, +,8). But contemporary psychoogy does not
dchotomze the w nto phenomena and noumena ragments.
Unthnkng obedence to externa authorty ndcates a ack o autonomy,
n Kants sense as we as the usua one. But or Kant, basng ones moraty
on ones thoughts about human nature, on ones own goas, on ones
concepton o the good, ndeed, on anythng one knows (n Kants terms,
anythng emprca or phenomena) aso ndcates a ack o autonomy
(lomasky, +,8;, Peko, +,8, Tayor, +,8, +,8,). Kantan autonomy
reay means obedence to an nterna authortynot an ndvdua
conscence, but a thoroughy mpersona agency. lt means submsson to
the causeess, causay necacous, atempora, nscrutabe, and
ncomprehensbe demands o the noumena w.
lrom Kants characterzaton o moraty as duty, two major
currents o thought have owed: ormasm and atrusm. lormasm
emphaszes Kants vews about the orma nature o mora rues, rather
than the content o hs mora bees. lormastc thnkers agree that
persona goas are non-mora and that mora rues must take the orm o
unversazabe categorca mperatves that appy prmary to soca
reatonshps. Kantan ormasm s currenty popuar, not domnant, n
academc mora phosophy and especay (gven ts restrcted scope) n
potca phosophy, n the eyes o both ts admrers (Kohberg, levne, 8
Hewer, +,8) and ts detractors (Veatch, +,8o) t s the contemporary
paradgm. lor nstance, Raws (+,;+) has attempted to justy the
weare state and redstrbutonsm usng a Kantan ormast procedure,
Gewrth (+,;8) has sought to justy a somewhat derent potca order
by a derent ormast procedure, and Nozck (+,;() has attempted to
reute Raws and justy a bertaran mted government wthout
presentng an aternatve mora ramework.
Atrusm derves more rom Kants substantve mora vews than
rom hs orma theory. Kant beeved that seekng ones own happness s
not a moray approprate goa, but that seekng the happness o others s
compeed by duty (+;,;/+,,+, pp. 8-8;). lrom the atrustc pont o
vew, mora acts are acts o se-sacrce or the benet o others.
lt shoud be noted that Kant hmse emphaszed duty, se-dena,
and resstance to temptaton, rather than atrusm, as the core o moraty.
Nany o the dutes he advocated (e.g., hepng the needy at ones own
expense) were the same ones that atrusts woud nsst on. But Kants
concepton o moraty was not atrustc at root. lrom hs standpont,
the bass o moraty were urtherng the ends o others or makng them
happy that woud st make mora rues condtona on someones goas.
Obedence to the noumena w was or Kant the ony bass or mora acts,
and he dd not hestate to cam the mportance o dutes to onese, such
as avodng serve behavor, or not stupeyng onese wth ood and drnk
(Kant, +;8o/+,o, +;8;/+,,+). O course, such dutes can be caed se-
- 7 -
nterested ony to the extent that the noumena se has nterests.

Though
Kant woud occasonay cam knowedge o noumena nterests, as n hs
notorous contenton that the noumena se seeks to deveop ts
(noumena') taents to the uest rather than devote tse to deness,
ndugence, and propagaton (Kant, +;8/+,,, p. (), appeas to
noumena nterests are no more coherent than appeas to noumena
causaty, and modern Kantans have et se-regardng dutes a by the
waysde.
lt was post-Kantan phosophers ke lchte, Hege, and omte who
rst mantaned that atrusm was the essence o moraty. To baze a tra
rom Kants mpersonasm through to u-bown atrusm, they had to
deveop a orm o metaphysca coectvsm (reducng the ndvdua to
the soca, and subordnatng the ndvdua to socety), o whch there are
ew traces n Kants own wrtngs (Peko, +,8).
Secuar atrusm s n any case a popuar moraty n our tme and
pace, we woud argue the popuar moraty. Adherents o popuar
moraty rarey devote much thought to examnng or justyng ther
poston, because they take t or granted. onsequenty the atrusts are
ess nterested n or cognzant o mora phosophy than the ormasts, and
nether Kant nor any other phosopher s oten cted n ther wrtngs.
Nonetheess, the Kantan presupposton, that moraty must never be se-
regardng, governs ther work.
lll looo orrr rmmm maaa a sss smmm m
KKK Kooo ohhh h bbb beee errr rggg g sss s aaa accc cccc cooo ouuu unnn nttt t ooo o mmm mooo orrr raaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t
The ormast approach became estabshed n mora deveopment
research through the poneerng works o lawrence Kohberg (+,,, +,;+,
+,8+, oby, Kohberg, Gbbs, 8 leberman, +,8, Kohberg, levne 8
Hewer, +,8). Kohberg conscousy paced hs own concepton o moraty
n the Kantan ormast tradton, he made extensve reerence to Kants
own work, and to that o promnent contemporary Kantans ke Hare
(+,), Baer (+,8), lrankena (+,;), Raws (+,;+) and Habermas (+,;,).
Kohberg was concerned prmary wth the knds o conceptons o mora
rues that peope use, or ther styes o mora reasonngnot the specc
rues they adopt or the specc judgments they make. He used crtera o
structure and orm to judge the sophstcaton o nstances o mora
reasonng, and consequenty to determne the deveopmenta stage they
beonged to.
A partcuary cear statement o these Kantan eanngs s Kohberg
et a.s (+,8) presentaton o the metaethca assumptons that undere
ther research program. They cam that n order to make use o
Kohbergs stages o mora reasonng, psychoogsts must accept a st o
assumptons about the nature o moraty. Such assumptons as
prescrptvsm, unversasm and prncpedness are ceary Kantanthey
are most centray emboded n unversazabe categorca mperatves.
Even more basc are the assumpton o ormasm and the
- 8 -
assumpton o the prmacy o justce (by whch Kohberg means ega or
potca justce). lorma prncpes o justce (ar procedures or baancng
conctng cams) are thngs a ratona agents coud agree on. By
contrast, peope dsagree about what s good, thereore, conceptons o the
good are bound to be purastc and thereore reatvehence they cant
serve as a bass or agreement.
Kohbergs concepton o ormasm perhaps deserves addtona
attenton. Acknowedgng that they have not aways done so n the past,
Kohberg et a. (+,8, pp. 8+-8) dstngush ethca ormasm, whch
means a deontoogca [duty-based] ethc ke Kants whch says that
rghtness s ony a matter o the unversa orm o the prncpe oowed
rom metaethca ormasm, whch s concerned wth the mora pont o
vew. But the mora pont o vew s tse to be characterzed ormay
and mpersonay. They quote lrankena, admrngy and at ength: hs
concuson s that one s takng the mora pont o vew and ony (a)
one s makng normatve judgments about actons, desres, dspostons,
ntentons, motves, persons, or trats o character, (b) one s wng to
unversaze ones judgments, (c) ones reasons or ones judgments consst
o acts about what the thngs judged do to the ves o sentent bengs n
terms o promotng or dstrbutng nonmora good and ev, and (d) when
the judgment s about onese or ones own actons, ones reasons ncude
such acts about what ones own actons and dspostons do to the ves o
other sentent bengs as such, others are aected. (+,;, p. ++().
Kohberg et a. (+,8) do not regard ther commtment to
ormasm as n any way controversa. They assert that n ths case o
metaethca ormasm, we know o no systematc statement o an
opposed poston (p. 8). They go so ar as to cam that a these modern
theorsts [Raws, Gewrth, Peters, Hare, Habermas and others] can be
characterzed as postconventona n ther orm o reasonng... ln ths sense
there are orma smartes among these thnkers, despte content
dvergences vhe there s vgorous dsagreement among phosophers
about theory ormuaton, these dsagreements exst wthn what coud be
caed a common paradgm. ln ths paradgm o modern mora phosophy,
basc assumptons are shared as to rgorous methods o argument.
Perhaps Kohberg and hs students have decded that such thnkers as Rand
(+,(), Norton (+,;), Veatch (+,, +,;+, +,8o), Nachan (+,;), lomasky
(+,8;), Nussbaum (+,8, +,,oa), and Rasmussen and Den Uy (+,,+) do
not count as mora phosophersor that they are a bad phosophers,
none o whom argues wth sucent rgor. But no such crtque s to be
ound anywhere n the Kohbergan corpus.
Appeas to authorty are not, n Kohbergs own terms, characterstc
o the most sophstcated sort o mora reasonng. A more thoughtu repy
to questons about ormasm, mpersonasm, and restrctve conceptons
o justce comes rom the Kohbergan James Rest (+,8):
there s no evdence that the core notons and psychoogca processes reated
to soca moraty are the same as those reatng to other vaues. lt s true that
conceptons o duty
- 9 -
and arness are cosey ted to conceptons o the good (an argument or not
separatng soca moraty rom other questons o vaue), however, t s aso
true that conceptons o duty and arness are cosey ted to human e (ls a -
month etus a human e'), se (ls one persons se bounded by hs skn or
does t ncude hs chdren, work, nterests'), ratonaty, socety, and so on.
Rather than takng up the whoe network o nterconnected thought, soca
moraty w be deneated as a speca doman (Rest, +,8, p. +;, n. +)
ve w revst ths queston o denng the mora doman on a
number o occasons, or t s undamenta to a debates about mora
deveopment.
KKK Kooo ohhh h bbb beee errr rggg g sss s sss sttt taaa aggg geee esss s ooo o mmm mooo orrr raaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t
Based on the orma character o reasonng about hypothetca
mora demmas (probems whch pt derent vaues aganst one another,
and whch can be resoved n more than one way), Kohberg dscerned a
seres o sx structura stages o mora thought, consstng o three eves
wth two stages each. Deveopment through these stages was thought to
nvove a progressve derentaton o mora rues rom prudenta
consderatons and rom soca conventons. ln descrbng these stages, we
w stck wth the more amar dea type characterzatons that
Kohberg (+,,, +,;+) gave n hs earer work. The ater account, n terms
o socomora perspectve (oby et a., +,8), seeks to purge the stage
descrptons o every vestge o specc mora content. lt has the practca
consequence (a dubous one at best) o dspeng the appearance o
regressons at the hgher stages o mora deveopment, but t aso makes
hgher stages harder to attan.
At the preconventona eve, nether mora rues nor soca
conventons are expcty understood. ln Stage +, mora judgments are
based on the physca consequences o actons or the actor. Avodance o
punshment and deerence to authorty are the crtera o good behavor.
ln Stage , mora judgments are based on what nstrumentay satses
ones own needs. A pragmatc or hedonstc orentaton prevas.
At the conventona eve, the standard o vaue s conormng to
the norms o ones group, and actng to mantan them. ln Stage , mora
judgments are based on peasng others and vng up to socay acceptabe
stereotypes. ln Stage (, mantenance o the soca order and oowng
xed rues become the prmary mora crtera.
O speca nterest or us s Kohbergs concepton o the most
advanced stages o mora thought, once moraty s rmy and expcty
dstngushed rom soca conventon, and the reasoner s abe to adopt a
perspectve pror to socety nstead o takng a partcuar soca order or
granted. The rst o these postconventona stages s Stage ,
characterzed by a soca-contract egastc orentaton. ln ths
orentaton there s an expressy uttaran appea to mora rues as socay
agreed-on standards, needed or the useu or beneca unctonng o
socety, and revsabe by genera agreement.
- 10 -
Beyond the sphere o these consensua soca rues, moraty s reegated to
persona opnon and regarded as purey subjectve and reatve.
Kohberg debataby takes Stage reasonng to be characterstc o
the Unted States onsttuton and to be the standard oundaton or the
Amercan ega system. (Debataby, because natura rghts theores are
wdey regarded as the oundaton or the Amercan ega system, and as
we sha see, many o them do not t Stage at a.) Stage reasonng
resembes potca phosophy n the Kantan ormast tradton, wth ts
vew o persona vaues as nonmora and reatve, and a ramework or
ntersubjectve agreement producng mora rues that govern soca
behavor. A t acks s the expct orma apparatus. The genera eatures
o Stage woud be amar and congena to Raws (+,;+) or Habermas
(+,;,).
Beyond Stage , Kohberg posts a Stage based on appea to
unversa ethca prncpes. These prncpes o justce, equa rghts, and
respect or ndvdua dgnty are regarded as bndng on everyone, and
mmune to ntersubjectve revson. They are however, ntersubjectve n
orgn, because they are the prncpes any deay ratona agent woud
arrve at, wth a uy equbrated mora perspectve. They are not based
on anythng nherent n the cosmos or n human nature. vhat s dstnctve
about them s ther abstract, orma eatures: ogca comprehensveness,
unversaty, and consstency. These are Kantan crtera, and as we mght
expect, Kohberg regards the categorca mperatve as a quntessentay
Stage mora prncpe.
Raws (+,;+), whose work s requenty cted by Kohberg (+,8+,
Kohberg et a, +,8) as an exempar o Stage reasonng, empoys a
Kantan varant o the soca contract approach to justy the weare state.
ln Raws approach, everyone must choose potca prncpes n the
orgna poston, wthout knowedge o hs or her own nterests, and
wthout any preconceptons about the good (Kohberg aso approvngy
ctes Habermass [+,;,] reated concepton o a communty o daogue).
Stage s prmary o nterest as an ndcaton o Kohbergs dea
mora orentaton, because by a accounts t s extremey rare. vhereas
Stage (even under the ater, strcter scorng system) s ound to some
degree n we educated aduts n vestern socetes, Stage was
utmatey et out o the scorng system atogether (oby et a., +,8). To
be at Stage , one woud have to be a phosopher-kng. Nonetheess, t
ndcates what Kohberg regards as the best and most advanced orm o
mora thought, the teos o mora deveopment. Through a o ts
vcsstudes, Kohberg (+,8+, Kohberg et a., +,8, Kohberg, Boyd, 8
levne, +,,o) never stopped mantanng that hs structura stage sequence
had to be dened as a progresson toward Stage .
NNN Naaa arrr rrrr rooo owww wnnn neee esss ssss s ooo o ttt thhh heee e mmm mooo orrr raaa a ddd dooo ommm maaa a nnn n
Not ony are Kohbergs hgher stages expressy Kantan n
character, but the
- 11 -
range o ssues on whch he assessed mora reasonng s exceedngy
narrow. The most requenty used verson o Kohbergs mora judgment
ntervew, lorm A, presents three demmas: (+) vhether Henz shoud
stea a prohbtvey expensve drug needed to save hs we rom a ata
ness, () whether a judge shoud be enent wth Henz ater Henz steas
the drug, and () whether Joes ather shoud voate a pror agreement by
teng Joe how to spend hs money (oby et a., +,8).
Because o the ntensve probng requred by Kohbergs stye o
ntervewng, ony a ew demmas can be presented. The same
narrowness o scope s apparent, however, on ess ntensve measures.
Rests (+,;,) Denng lssues Test s a standardzed assessment o Kohbergs
stages that correates we wth perormance on Kohbergs own demmas
(at east under the oder, dea-type stage dentons). Persons takng the
Denng lssues Test rank a preseected set o consderatons about each
demma n order o mportance, on ths bass, ther reasonng s cassed
as predomnanty conventona (Stages or () or postconventona (Stages
or ). There are demmas: (+) the Henz demma, () whether or not
to turn n an escaped convct who has conceaed hs past and become a
sod ctzen, () whether or not to hre a mnorty worker n a racay
prejudced communty, (() how the admnstraton o a coege shoud
respond to the takeover o a budng by a New let group, () whether
the prncpa o a hgh schoo shoud suppress a student newspaper that
prnted an edtora attackng schoo poces, and () whether a doctor
shoud k a termnay patent at the patents request.
Except perhaps or Rests thrd probem (whch deas n part wth
communty atttudes), a o these demmas revove around questons o
rghts and ega justce. There are no mora demmas n these coectons
about reyng on ones own thnkng versus gong aong wth the crowd, or
puttng ones own goas rst rather than resovng prmary to care or
others, or beng honest wth onese about a dcut or panu ssue versus
adoptng a pocy o se-decepton. Athough these are the prmary mora
concts o major works o cton (among many exampes, lbsen,
+88/+,8, Rand, +,(, Kesey, +,(), and they gure n many peopes
ves, they are not ncuded n Kohbergs or Rests mora demmas.
Nor are there mora questons about how we ought to reate to our
eengs. l l ee angry at a rend shoud l vew my anger as ndcatng
some voaton o my own ntegrty and vaues, and thereore as
somethng to be stened to, artcuated, and perhaps acted on' Or shoud l
vew my angry reacton as mmature, se-centered and
dangerousndeed, best hdden or suppressed because o ts potenta to
dsrupt soca harmony'
The Kohbergan approach, then, restrcts tse to a narrow doman
o mora reasonng: so-caed justce reasonng, n stuatons n whch
conctng rghts or mora cams have to be resoved or baanced.
lormasm requres that moraty
- 12 -
be other-regardng, so t shues o prvate vaues as reatve and
subjectve. lormasm requres that mora prncpes be unversa,
categorca and mpersona, so t ends up reducng moraty to ega and
potca justce.
ooo ouuu u ddd d aaa annn nyyy y ooo ottt thhh heee errr r mmm mooo orrr raaa a ccc cooo onnn nccc ceee eppp pttt t ooo onnn n bbb beee e ppp pooo osss sttt tccc cooo onnn nvvv veee ennn nttt t ooo onnn naaa a ''' '
A derent knd o narrowness n Kohbergs approach s reveaed
by the exstence o reasoned postons n mora phosophy that do not t n
any o hs stages. Kohberg repeatedy emphaszed the unversaty o hs
herarchy o stages. ln consequence, any genune mora poston (at east,
nsoar as t bears on questons o potca justce) shoud beong n one or
more o them.
ve w argue that the eudamonc, Arstotean poston s a
counterexampe. A word about our mutpe uses o eudamonsm may be
approprate here. Eudamonsm serves more than one purpose n ths
crtque: (+) as an aternatve concepton o moraty that some peope
come to hod, and, thereore, that any theory o mora deveopment must
be abe to account or, () as a standpont rom whch to chaenge the
mora and the psychoogca assumptons made by Kantan approaches,
and () as an ndcaton o a derent approach to mora deveopment,
emphaszng the broader deveopment o vaues and o the se or
personaty. ve w endeavor to make cear, as we proceed, how we are
usng eudamonsm, and w reconsder these mutpe purposes when we
contempate how the study o mora deveopment mght ook ater t
breaks out o ts post-Kantan connes.
Some cauton s requred here, because the eudamonstc tradton
s od enough and compex enough to have deveoped n a number o
derent drectons. Our understandngs o ourseves, our se-
nterpretatons, have changed snce Arstote ormuated the Ncomachean
Ethcs. lor Arstote, the ndvdua was aways a ctzen-n-a-pos-n-a-
cosmos. A straghtorward consequence was that Arstote had no
concepton o rghts that an ndvdua mght have not to be harmed by
other members o the pos. (lor that matter, Arstote, ke other Greek
thnkers, accepted savery as part o the soca order and tred to justy t
on the ground that some peope are natura saves.)
Some orms o modern eudamonsm carry orward Arstotes
emphass on the pos. Such approaches are communtaran, hoste to
bera ndvduasm, and at best uncertan about ndvdua rghts
(Naclntyre, +,8+, Nussbaum, +,8, +,,oa,b, Beah, Nadsen, Suvan,
Swder, 8 Tpton, +,8, Suvan, +,8). They reject other key aspects o
Arstotes ethcs, such as hs metaphysca boogy and hs concepton o
human goas, repacng them wth a hermeneutc soca ontoogy that
vews human bengs as embedded wthn communty, anguage, and
tradton, Naclntyre and Nussbaum aso draw to some extent on Narxst
tradtons.
But there s aso a dstnct bera ndvduast stran n
eudamonsm, one that retans (wth mnor modcatons) Arstotes vew
o human goas (or mans natura end) and ntegrates t wth lockean
- 13 -
and post-lockean conceptons o ndvdua rghts. Exponents o
ndvduast eudamonsm, ke Rand (+,(), Nachan (+,;), Norton
(+,;), Rasmussen and Den Uy (+,,+), vheeer (+,8()and ess
purstcay, Veatch (+,, +,;+, +,8)are advocates o ndvdua rghts,
and evauate the goodness o human socetes on the bass o ther respect
or ndvdua rghts.
One mght we ask whether the reasonng o contemporary bera
eudamonsts woud quay as postconventona. Despte ther conceptons
o rghts, and ther genune pror-to-socety perspectve, such eudamonstc
conceptons do not beong n Stage . Theorsts n ths tradton consder
rghts to be objectve, based on acts about human nature and the
requrements o soca exstence, not the product o ntersubjectve
agreement or consderatons about maxmzng soca utty. Thus ther
thnkng cannot be consdered uttaran. Nor s ther thnkng rooted n
mpersona prncpes o a deontoogca or duty-based nature.
Perhaps we have amed too ow. Because they hod that rghts are
based on undamenta mora prncpes, we mght wonder whether the
reasonng o theorsts ke Rand, Norton, Den Uy, and Rasmussen coud be
ncuded n Kohbergs Stage . Stage prncpes, however, are
characterzed by orma eatures: They are unversazabe categorca
mperatves. Stage prncpes are whoy ndependent o the pursut o
prvate goas, or o conceptons o the good, they are not ntended to
answer the queston, vhy be mora' (Kohberg, +,;+, +,8+, Kohberg 8
Power, +,8+).
By contrast, or eudamonsm, mora standards are hypothetca
mperatves, means to an utmate end approprate or human bengs, or
nstantatons o that end. Goas can be reated to other goas
nstrumentay, as means to those goas, they can aso be reated to other
goas by satsyng or nstantatng them (ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8). ln
eudamonsm, partcuary ndvduast eudamonsm o the ncusve-end
varety (Den Uy, +,,+, Rasmussen 8 Den Uy, +,,+) hypothetca
mperatves may nvove ether nstrumenta and satsacton reatonshps.
lrom ths perspectve, eudamona or human ourshng can be
nstantated n many derent ways, derent consteatons o vaues are
approprate or derent ndvduas, but ths purasm does not mpy
reatvsm. Noreover, the pursut o any consteaton o eudamonc
vaues needs to be se-drected, and the cruca mportance o se-
drectedness s the bass or rghts.
vhat dstngushes such prncpes s ther ontoogca bass n a
concepton o human nature, not ther orma eatures. Eudamonc
prncpes o potca justce derve rom more undamenta consderatons
about the good, and rom consderatons about the need or moraty n the
rst pace. Eudamonc conceptons o human rghts and human dgnty
emerge rom a ramework radcay derent rom anythng n Kohbergs
concepton o Stage .
Noreover, Kohberg, despte hs proessed nterest n the structure
o mora reasonng rather than specc norms or judgments, presumed
genera agreement among postconventona thnkers on the answers to
mora demmas. lor the
- 14 -
Henz demma, Kohberg, n hs ater wrtngs, posts a rgd herarchy that
ranks the rght to e o Henzs we above the druggsts property rghts n
the drug that he nvented. A Stage thnkers must concude that human
rghts are more mportant than property rghts, and hence that Henz
woud be justed n steang the drug: vhether someone s a Kantan
deontoogst or a uttaran, they agree that t s rght or Henz to stea
the drug, they use postconventona reasonng (Kohberg et a., +,8, p.
+o8). Stage nvoves competey equbrated dea roe-takng,
concernng a possbe partcpants n the demma. Accordng to Kohberg
(+,8+), a Stage reasoners w be abe to take each partcpants roe
wthout bas or egocentrsm, and so w come to the same concusons
about any demma, provded they understand the acts. ln act, Stage
reasoners w concude that Henz not ony has a rght to stea the drug,
but that he has a duty to, and he owes ths duty mpartay to anyone who
needs the drug (rend, stranger, even hs worst enemy)not just someone
he cares deepy or.
By contrast, eudamonc natura rghts phosophers ke Rand
(+,() and Norton (+,;) woud concude that Henz shoud not stea the
drug. Rand consders persons to be moray nseparabe rom ther justy
acqured property (Den Uy 8 Rasmussen, +,8(b). Nozck (+,;(), whose
concepton o rghts s not ounded on a eudamonc ethc, woud aso
consder t wrong or Henz to stea the drug: the act that Henzs we
needed the drug woud not justy usng orce to seze the druggsts justy
acqured property (see aso Puka, +,,o, who, though unsympathetc to
Nozcks potcs, presses exacty ths case aganst Kohberg). Natura rghts
theorsts woud contend that property rghts are human rghts, and that
Henz shoud not stea the drug, so they smpy coud not get rated at
Stage or . ln eudamonsm, then, we have a cear mora poston, wth
rea advocates and practtoners, that s prncped, that deas wth
questons o justce and rghts, and that ceary dstngushes moraty rom
soca conventon, but must be excuded rom ether o Kohbergs
postconventona stages.
Eudamonsm s prooundy anomaous or Kohbergs account o
mora thought. And t cannot be dsmssed as a counterexampe just
because we have ustrated t by ctng phosophers. Kohberg (+,;+, +,8+)
aways ustrated hs own Stage wth the statements o hstorca gures,
such as Nahatma Gandh and Nartn luther Kng, and wth the reasonng
o proessona mora phosophers. Nor s eudamonsm the ony mature
mora vewpont that has been dened admttance nto Kohbergs stage
sequence. Hndusm provdes a vasty derent counterexampe (Vasudev
8 Humme, +,8;), Tbetan Buddhsm another (Huebner 8 Garrod, +,,+).
onucansm provdes st another (ua, +,8,, Den, +,8, Nunro, +,,,
vaey, +,8). Once Kohbergs Kantan presuppostons are hed n ocus,
counterexampes to hs poston arent hard to nd at a.
TTT Tuuu urrr r eee e ooo onnn n ttt thhh heee e mmm mooo orrr raaa a ,, , , ttt thhh heee e ccc cooo onnn nvvv veee ennn nttt t ooo onnn naaa a ,, , , aaa annn nddd d ttt thhh heee e ppp prrr ruuu uddd deee ennn nttt t aaa a
Another cear case o the ormast approach, one that n some
ways goes arther than Kohbergs, s the recent work o Eot Ture and
- 15 -
hs coaborators (Ture, +,8a, Nucc 8 Ture, +,;8, Shweder, Ture, 8
Nuch, +,8+). ve nd Tures work partcuary vauabe because o the
questons t rases about the denton o the mora doman.
Tures prmary concern s how chdren dstngush the mora
doman rom other soca domans n the course o deveopment. Ture
(+,8a, Shweder et a., +,8+) takes mora rues to be dened by the
crtera ad down by Gewrth (+,;8). Accordng to Gewrth, mora rues
must be categorcay obgatory and mpersona, and cannot be rejected
on pan o contradcton. As these crtera make pan, hs mora
phosophy s ormast and Kantan. lnstead o reyng on Raws (+,;+)
soca contract mechansm, Gewrth seeks to derve mora rues rom
nonmora persona vaues va an argument about anaytcay necessary
eatures o human acton: Each actor, by perormng a smpe conceptua
anayss o acton, must reaze that reedom and we-beng are
anaytcay necessary or acton, and n consequence, that everyone has
rghts to reedom and we-beng (or crtques see Den Uy 8 Rasmussen,
+,,+, Veatch, +,;, +,;,).
On the bass o Gewrths crtera, Ture seeks to dstngush mora
rues rom conventona soca rues (whch are arbtrary and changeabe
means or reachng an agreed-on end). Nora rues are aso to be
dstngushed rom standards or ones own behavor, whch are to be
regarded as prudenta or persona and non-mora. Kohberg thought
that mora rues ony came to be derentated rom prudenta rues at
the conventona eve o deveopment, and that mora rues were not
dstngushed rom soca conventons unt the postconventona eve. By
contrast, Ture regards mora, conventona, and prudenta rues as
ormng dstnct domans eary n deveopment.
Nucc and Ture (+,;8) sought to demonstrate emprcay that
young chdren aready dstngush between transgressons o mora rues
and voatons o soca conventons. They showed that to -year-ods n a
nursery schoo settng responded derenty to mora transgressons (e.g.,
httng another chd) than to voatons o soca conventons (e.g.,
workng n an area not assgned by the teacher). Nucc and Ture
concuded, contrary to Kohbergs theory, that mora rues and soca
conventons are aready dstnct domans or preschooers, though t takes
up unt age +o or so or the doman dstnctons to be made wth compete
consstency or apped to unamar cases (Ture, Ken, 8 Hewg, +,8;).
An obvous objecton to ths nterpretaton s that Kohbergs
theores ocus on how mora rues are expcty justed. Young chdren
mght we derentate between mora rues and soca conventons n
practce, wthout beng abe to make the derentaton expcty. But
Kohberg woud want them to be abe to state, expan, or justy the
derence. Shweder et a. (+,8+) do acknowedge that ther
mora/conventona dstncton s an mpct one, whereas Kohbergs s
expct. ln short, Kohbergs dstncton between mora and conventona
appes to hgher eves o knowng (ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8, +,,,
Noshman, +,,), and thereore to hgher deveopmenta stages, than
Tures does.
- 16 -
A deeper objecton s that the domans dstngushed by
preschooers n studes ke Nucc and Tures may not be mora and
conventona domans at a. The mora transgressons n the study were
a voatons o rghts or enttementsphysca aggresson, takng
anothers property, ang to share a toy that was supposed to be shared.
The chdrens reactons to these transgressons came especay rom the
vctmscompants o njury or oss, emotona reactons, enstng the
hep o an adut, teng the aggressor to stop, etc. Usuay, the chdren dd
not respond at a to voatons o conventona rues, a roe that was et to
the aduts. hdren may be abe to recognze smpe cases o aggresson
aganst persons and property, react negatvey to them, and take acton
aganst them, wthout n any way characterzng mora rues as Tures
theory cams.
lt coud even be that young chdren are reactng to voatons o
ther own autonomy, and eeng empathy or voatons o others
autonomy, wthout havng any other ratonae or condemnng such
voatons. ln that case, there woud not yet be any mora doman or
young chdren, they woud not yet be representng or earnng about
mora ssues as such.
rtcs have aso ponted to other cutures n whch many o the
ssues that Ture has dened as conventona are treated as mora ssues.
lor nstance, chdren (aged 8 to +o) o the Brahmn caste n the Hndu
tempe town o Bhubaneswar rate the oowng as the top our sns: +.
The day ater hs athers death, the edest son had a harcut and ate
chcken. . One o your amy members eats bee reguary. . One o your
amy members eats a dog reguary or dnner. (. A wdow n your
communty eats sh two or three tmes a week (Shweder, Nahapatra, 8
Ner, +,8;, p. (o). Hardy anyone n Tures Amercan sampes woud
consder any o these to be mora nractons, and none o them t Tures
Gewrthan crcumscrpton o the mora doman.
Denng domans o sk and understandng s a deep probem
throughout deveopmenta psychoogy. Ture and hs coaborators,
oowng the practce o Paget and many others, regard an a pror
casscaton o eds, or subject matters, as an adequate bass or
dstngushng domans n deveopment (Ture, +,8b, Ture 8 Davdson,
+,8). But domans cannot be adequatey dstngushed on the bass o
crtera externa to the knower (Bckhard 8 ampbe, +,,, ampbe 8
Bckhard, +,8), there must be common ways o representng, and
common heurstcs or earnng about, what s n a doman (ampbe 8
Bckhard, +,,, ampbe, +,,) or common patterns o earnng (Ke,
+,,o). Just because two abtes pertan to the same externay dened
subject matter, t does not oow that they are deveopmentay reated.
hdren may not have common representatons or earnng heurstcs or
ths subject matter. Just because an nvestgator can ormuate probems
that he or she recognzes as mora probems, and can get chdren to
respond to them n a derent manner than to probems that the
nvestgator consders to be reated to soca conventons, t does not oow
that chdren represent them as mora probems. How do
- 17 -
they represent these and smar probems' How do they earn what to do
on these and smar probems'
ln an area ke number deveopment, there s tte controversy
about whch probems beong to the mathematca subject matter, though
there s penty o controversy about chdrens understandng o those
probems. ln an area ke mora deveopment, there s controversy about
the edabout whch probems beong to the mora subject matter.
lrom the ormast Kantan standpont, mora probems are probems o
justce and arness, probems about voatons o rghts or enttements.
These are the ony knd that need to be nvestgated. lrom the
eudamonc standpont, rghts to person and property are but a subset o
mora standards, and a consequence o deeper mora prncpes. Prvate
mora standards, such as honesty wth onese, ntegrty, and the pursut o
ones specc exceence, are centra to the mora ed (Norton, +,;,
Rand, +,(, Veatch, +,, vheeer, +,8(), as s practca wsdom, or sk n
baancng and choosng among competng goods (Den Uy, +,,+). Such
standards and vrtues do not beong to what Ture (+,8a) cas the
persona ed, whose centra nstances are stystc preerences ke ones
taste n cothng or counses o prudence ke rdng ones bcyce saey
(Tsak 8 Ture, +,8(). As Bas (+,,o, p. (8) ponts out, or Kantans the
persona ed s a mere resdue, what s et over when rghts and soca
rues have been subtracted and s thereore presumed to be moray
rreevant.
There s no way to te what ssues, any, chdren treat as mora
by nspectng the day soca nteractons o preschooers or voatons o
soca rues. Nany o the ssues that eudamonsts consder to be mora
woudnt arse n such a context. Nor woud Tures stye o nvestgaton
enabe researchers to determne whether chdren recognze any
connecton between voatng persona mora standards and voatng
rghts. A derent and much broader range o ssues woud have to be
nvestgated. The proposed boundares, not ony o the mora doman, but
aso o the mora subject matter, depend on the phosophca concepton
o moraty that the nvestgator has adopted.
ln cang or a broader denton o the mora ed, we must now
make good on our promse to rebut Rests (+,8) deense o a dstnct
doman o soca moraty. ln essence, Rest contends that wang o
soca moraty s convenent. Otherwse, mora questons woud beed
messy nto questons about e, the se, ratonaty, socety, compeng
us to take on the entre nterconnected network o thought nstead o a
neaty separabe doman. So they woud, but we see no way to avod ths
nconvenent outcome.
The contrary path, treatng moraty as se-encapsuated and
dvorcng t rom concerns about e, vaues, and the se, rapdy eads to
absurdty. Ture makes an eort to cut moraty oose rom questons
about human nature, appeang to a coordnaton o mora judgments
wth the much ess than perect psychoogca concepts (concepts o
persons) that ndvduas hod (+,8a, p. +8). Snce
- 18 -
a deenses o savery assert that some members o our speces are neror
to others, ndeed not truy human, and the queston o savery beongs to
moraty even as narrowy dened by Ture (see, or nstance, Ture et a.,
+,8;), such an excuson s mpossbe. vere the abotonsts and the
apoogsts or savery beore the v var merey havng troube
coordnatng ther mora judgments wth ther concept o a person'
Does the current debate about aborton, or that matter, merey
turn on the dcuty o makng such a coordnaton' Ture, Hdebrandt
and vanryb (+,,+) suggest that normatona assumptons about the
begnnng o e pay a major roe n reasonng about aborton, and can be
separated rom the truy mora ssues that are nvoved (why murder s
wrong) or the truy persona ssues ( an act doesnt harm others, t shoud
be a matter o persona choce). But assumptons about the begnnng o
e e outsde the mora doman ony because Ture has so dened them.
To urther conuse matters, Ture and hs coaborators have
recenty nvented another category or ssues ke aborton, homosexuaty,
and pornography (Hewg, Tsak, 8 Ture, +,,o, Ture et a., +,,+). These
are sad to be nonprototypca, not ceary mora, but not soca
conventona or persona ether. One o the probems here has been
eucdated by Gabennesch (+,,oa,b): there are no vctms whose rghts
and enttements have been voated, then the rue that s beng voated
cannot be treated as a mora one. vhy, then, s t not treated as a
conventona rue, one that s arbtrary and changeabe by soca
agreementor even as a persona matter about whch peope can make
any rues they ke' Tures ramework makes no provson or such
anomaous rues, nonmora by denton but apparenty endowed wth
mora orce. Such rues cannot be mora, yet t s emprcay obvous that
they are not regarded as ether conventona or persona. That s, qute a
ew Amercans beeve that there are nonarbtrary rues aganst
homosexuaty, pornography, and aborton, and regard voatons o them
as moray wrong.
ve want to draw attenton to a derent but reated dcuty.
Nany o the Amercans ntervewed by Ture et a. (+,,+) consder
aborton or homosexuaty or pornography to be mmora, yet do not
beeve that such actvtes shoud be ega. lrom Tures pont o vew,
peope consder mora rues to be noncontngent (categorca) and
unversa, and ther voaton to nvove harm to vctms. ln consequence
everyone shoud judge that whatever s mmora shoud be ega. But
such a pattern o reasonng (mmora thereore ega) s not to be
expected under a dentons o the mora doman.
There are other mora conceptons, such as eudamonsm, accordng
to whch some actvtes can be contrary to mora standards (or nstance,
because they nvove se-decepton or are se-destructve or dera us
rom achevng our persona exceence), but shoud not be ega because
they do not voate the rghts o other peope. Nost contemporary bera
eudamonsts woud not consder homosexuaty to be mmora, qute a
ew woud not consder pornography
- 19 -
to be mmora ether, but a woud agree that homosexuaty and
pornography shoud be ega. Nore to the pont, contemporary bera
eudamonsts woud not avor outawng even patenty se-destructve
behavor, ke massve consumpton o mnd-aterng drugs, so ong as t
does not voate the rghts o others. Drug abuse, n other words, coud be
regarded as mmora wthout any mpcaton that t ought to be ega.
Noreover, t s key that some o the peope ntervewed by Ture
and hs coaborators are n the grp o competng mora conceptons (or
nstance, a concepton that behavor contrary to natura soca practces,
or contrary to regous njunctons, shoud be orbdden versus a concepton
o ndvdua rghts). Ther nterna conct mght even nvove the very
denton o the mora doman. Tures ramework cannot aow nterna
mora concts, uness, o course, they are concts between unversa,
noncontngent prncpes o rghts and ega justce. Otherwse, what
appear to be mora concts must be resovabe nto cashes between
mora conceptons and soca or nsttutona or prudenta or
normatona conceptons, judgments about the natura order or even
bees about unearthy events (Ture et a., +,8;).
Ths ast category deserves speca attenton. vhen Ture et a.
(+,8;, Hewg et a., +,,o) ntroduce the category o unearthy-bee-
medated mora events to account or many o Shweder et a.s (+,8;)
ndngs they have nay stepped out o Gewrthan and Kantan bounds.
They expan the mora status o the number + sn n Shweder et a.s (+,8;)
survey, the case o the edest son gettng a harcut and eatng chcken the
day ater hs athers death, on the grounds o harmu consequences n the
atere: the deceased athers sou woud not receve savaton [the]
proscrpton aganst eatng chcken s not observed (p. o8). Sn number
, eatng bee, s mmora because t brngs harm to the cow, beeved to
be a sacred beng (p. o,). Ture et a. decare that one accepts the
assumpton that there s an atere and that certan earthy actons aect
the we-beng o a person n the atere, then that acton can be
regarded as mora [.e., beongng to the mora doman] (p. ++).
lncdentay, t s not just other sous that w be harmed n the atere,
rom the Hndu perspectve, snnng produces negatve karma and harms
ones own sou as we.
Kant woud not have been mpressed wth Tures ne o reasonng,
because t readmts hypothetca mperatves (based on persona
consequences or phenomena seves n the atere) nto the sphere o
mora rues. Kant (+;8+/+,) beeved n an atere, whch was one o hs
deas o pure reason, but he made t cear that he coud not consder the
ate o ones sou n t to the bass or mora ruessuch a bass woud
make them hypothetca and reduce them a to counses o prudence.

2
Ironically, Shweders (1990) later acceptance of the unearthly-belief-mediated
category as a partial explanation of his Indian data does no harm to his conception of
the moral domain, because his definition is quite a bit broader than Turiels.
Shweder (1990)
- 20 -
vhether the mora doman can be dened as Kantans wsh to
dene t s an emprca queston, not to be setted by a pror arguments
nor by appeas to the convenence o the nvestgator. lt may just be that
mora deveopment s bgger, messer, and more compcated than most
nvestgators have wanted to thnk. lndeed, n the course o mora
deveopment derent peope may come to dene the mora doman
derenty. ln any case, attempts to progressvey pury the mora
doman o aen consderatons about the se, e, ratonaty, human
nature, and the soca order are abe to prove wrongheaded. They are
abe to ead to a se-perpetuatng research program that spns o
epcyce ater epcyce to protect ts own strateges o expanaton whe
oretng the chance to say anythng nterestng about mora
deveopment.
Ture, then, shares the ormast assumptons nherent n Kohbergs
enterprse: Nora rues are st categorcay obgatory, they st pertan
to soca ssues ony. But by tryng to push dstnctons between the mora,
the conventona, and the prudenta arther back nto chdhood Ture has
rased doman questons n ther starkest orm. One cannot deend Tures
doman dentons smpy by pontng to the emprca success o hs
narrowy conceved research program. The occasons on whch chdren
respond derenty to mora transgressons, dened a a Gewrth, than to
breaches o soca conventons, do not estabsh that they represent mora
rues at a, much ess that they represent them (or even treat them n
practce) as categorcay obgatory. There are other conceptons o the
mora ed than the one Ture has chosen to useand the dentons o
the mora doman that peope actuay arrve at durng the course o
deveopment, though currenty unexpored, are probaby more vared than
the rva conceptons o the mora ed that we have been consderng.
GGG G ggg gaaa annn n sss s eee ettt thhh h ccc c ooo o ccc caaa arrr reee e
ln rejectng the conuson between mora rues and soca
conventons supposedy prevaent n Kohbergs ower stages, Ture ony
strengthens the grp o post-Kantan ormasm. Other attempts at revson

packs principles of rights and justice, unearthly-belief-mediated moral principles,
and even a good deal of what Helwig et al. (1990) continue to maintain are pure
social conventions into his more expansive conception. Shweders rationale for this
definition is a conception of natural moral law that is evidently non-Kantian,
though unfortunately not well explicated. It is worth noting, too, that Turiel et al.
(1987, p. 198) do not do much better with another dimension of religious morality
that is brought to the forefront in Shweders work, ritual cleanliness. They try to
turn orthodox Hindu taboos against menstruating women into a mere prudential
belief based on the empirical premise that menstrual blood is poisonous. It would
make as much sense to reduce the ritual separation of milk and meat in orthodox
Jewish dietary laws to an empirical belief about what is good for the digestion! Or
consider the Confucian virtue of li. Li is simultaneously an intellectual virtue, a basic
moral virtue, and a way of maintaining harmony with the natural orderand it
requires punctilious performance of rituals (Cua, 1989; Dien, 1982). Turiels style of
analysis would be compelled to chop it into at least three different pieces.
- 21 -
have struck at ormasm tse. The most ceebrated o these s aro
Ggans (+,8) concepton o an ethc o care as dstnct rom the
ormast concepton o ega justce reasonng.
The superheated rhetorc and cams o unprecedented dscovery
that requenty accompany presentatons o Ggans poston (e.g., lyons,
+,8, Brown 8 Tappan, +,,+) do not concea the act that Ggan began as
a student o Kohbergs, and that she st subscrbes wthout queston to a
number o dstnctvey Kohbergan assertons. Her overa concepton o
deveopment s tte changedthough she does not currenty cast her own
work n stage terms, she contnues to endorse Kohbergs parochay
structurast nterpretaton o deveopmenta stages.

She arms her ath

that a postconventona reasoners w agree that Henz shoud stea the
drug. Ggans bggest concesson o a s to acknowedge the vadty o
Kohbergs account o justce reasonngso ong as care gets equa bng.
On the other hand, Ggan and her students have become
ncreasngy crtca o Kantan ormasm and mpersonasm. ln some o
her earer work Ggan concerned herse wth the advent o contextua
consderatons n the mora reasonng o young aduts, a deveopment that
coud ony be nterpreted as reatvstc (hence as a regresson) wthn the
Kohbergan ramework (Nurphy 8 Ggan, +,8o). She was aready
chang at the rgdtes o Kohbergs concepton o mature mora
reasonng. She went on to dene a u-edged ethc o care and
responsbty, whch she opposed to the prmacy o justce n Kohbergs
ramework (Ggan, +,8).
ve are not nterested here n Ggans cams about sex
derences, whch Brabeck (+,8) dagnosed as mythc, and whch have
had to be weakened over the years. vhat concerns us s the commony
reterated asserton, ncorporated rght nto the scorng procedures, that
there are ony two possbe mora orentatons, justce and care, thus that
Kohberg and Ggan between them have uy mapped the mora doman
(lyons, +,8, Ggan 8 Attanucc, +,88, Brown 8 Tappan, +,,+). lke
lanagan (+,,+), we do not beeve that gure/ground metaphors and
ausons to the unversaty o nequaty and attachment are adequate to
estabsh the exstence o two and ony two mora orentatons. Kohberg
has not provded an anayss o eudamonsm, or onucansm, or Tbetan
Buddhsm, or orthodox Hndusm, that subsumes ther prncpes and
concerns under the justce orentaton, Ggan has not subsumed them
under the care orentaton.
O comparabe sgncance to us s whether Ggans ndngs and
her ethc o care are consstent wth the Kantan egacy. ln the
Kohbergan camp the response has been ambvaent. Kohberg et a.
(+,8) tred to accommodate as

3
Kohlbergs interpretations of Piaget and his overall outlook on development cannot
be examined here (for a critique of middle-period Piagetian structuralism of the
sort embraced by Kohlberg, see Campbell and Bickhard, 1986). Nor do we have space
to scrutinize his specific applications to issues of justice of Piagetian conceptions like
equilibration and reversibility (see Potts, 1992).
- 22 -
much o Ggans concepton o mora ssues as they coud. They went so
ar as to assert that an atrustc ethc o care s subsumed by ther justce
stagesndeed, that justce and care are whoy ntegrated at Stage .
Such assertons are untenabe. Speca concern or those one oves (whch
s crtca to the care orentaton) mght squeak by n Stages and (,
though ony when medated by expectatons about soca roes. Not so at
Stage . And Stage thnkers owe dutes mpartay to every needy
person n the word, so partcuar reatonshps have to be moray
rreevant to them. They w have to nd some mpersona prncpe or
commandment o the noumena w to gude them n ther reatons wth
rends and oved ones. The dcuty o savng a nche or ove and
rendshp n a Kantan concepton o moraty has been wdey noted snce
the begnnng (Kant, +;,;/+,,+, Nussbaum, +,,ob, lanagan, +,,+).
At other tmes, Kohberg et a. (+,8) orthrghty reject those
aspects o Ggans matera that resst mpersona treatment as merey
persona and non-mora. They downgrade a moraty o care as
secondary to justce, and decsons made n t as aectve and not
ratona (by whch they mean not orma or a prorgven ther
acknowedged nscrutabty, the ratonaty o bee n the noumena se
and ts categorca mperatves s open to queston). Nunner-vnker
(+,8(), n a more graceu attempt at reconcaton, cams that Kohberg
and Ggan reay dsagree ony on dentons o the good ewhch n a
Kantan perspectve has the convenent property o not beongng to the
mora doman.
There s ess ambvaence n the Ggan camp, whch has come to
reject post-Kantan ormasm qute orthrghty or ts nabty to come to
terms wth care (e.g., lyons, +,8) and ts requrement that the se be
separate and objectve rather than connected. Ggans concepton s
oten nterpreted as atrustc, because t makes care and responsbty or
other peope paramount. Programmatc statements can be ound to
support ths cam: ln a perspectve o response, the ocus s aways on the
needs o others: t s the weare or we-beng o others that s
mportant (lyons, +,8). ve thnk t woud be mseadng, however, to
ncude Ggan n the atrust or prosoca camp, or reasons that w
become cearer when we consder that poston. Ggans work ntroduces
persona vaues nto mora reasonng n a way that undermnes both
Kantan conceptons.
Speccay, Ggan ntroduces concerns about the se that any
sort o Kantan must dsdan as moray rreevant or subversve o duty. ln
Ggans (+,8) aborton ntervews, women strugge wth the noton that
concern wth ther own needs s purey sesh and moray egtmate.
Ggan consders t a sgn o growth when they reject the subordnaton o
ther needs to those o others. Athough or her the endpont o
deveopment nvoves baanced concern or se and others and some o
the women voce atrustc deas n ther resouton o the aborton
demmas, ths aspect o Ggans work s nonetheess revoutonary.
Nether the ormast or atrust ramework w ever treat attenton to
ones own
- 23 -
needs as a mora ssue, the very dea o care or se (Ggan, +,8,
Ggan 8 Attanucc, +,88) must reman anomaous rom ether
standpont.
The most mportant contrbuton that Ggan and her students
coud brng to the study o mora deveopment thus es bured and
mpct. They have chaenged Kohbergs brand o post-Kantan
ormasm and mpersonasm (whe contnung, we suspect, to accord
exaggerated promnence to t). They have ted the deveopment o
moraty to the deveopment o the se n a manner that ormasts cannot
toerate. They have dscarded Kohbergs stage sequence. They have
adopted mdy subversve research methods, ke askng peope, vhat
does moraty mean to you' vhat they have not done s openy
chaenge the assumpton that moraty must be other-regardng.
ontnued armatons crop up rather oten, or nstance, n Johnstons
asserton (+,88, p. ) that moraty pertans to resovng concts n our
reatonshps wth others.
Ggan s, n our vew, competey rght to treat ssues o se-
concept and persona growth as moray reevant, but she has not reazed
that rentegratng mora deveopment wth personaty deveopment and
the deveopment o the se requres us to reject the Kantan egacy n
toto. Ggan mght have arrved at ths concuson herse had she come
to grps wth other systems o mature mora reasonng. ln surveyng the
mora doman, Ggan and her coaborators have progressed rom tunne
vson to myopa, there s a great dea more to the andscape than
mpersona justce and se-sacrcng care.
The attempts to revse or extend Kohbergs theory, then, are o
consderabe nterest. Ture has jettsoned Kohbergs mora stage
sequence but camped a narrow ormast denton ever more tghty
around the mora doman. Ggan has chaenged the sucency o the
post-Kantan ormast approach or accountng or the mora thought o
aduts n everyday e. So ar these doubts have ed to pecemea
extensons o the mora doman, the ad hoc addton o another mora
orentaton, or cas or a synthess o the two and ony two orentatons
(Puka, +,,+, Brown 8 Tappan, +,,+). They have not ed anyone to rethnk
the concepton o moraty that was used to dene the mora doman.
By contrast, the advocates o atrustc or prosoca conceptons o
mora deveopment have been outspoken n questonng Kohbergs
denton o the mora doman. They have thrown out or deemphaszed
orma rues, but wthout questonng the root post-Kantan concepton o
moraty as other-regardng, n act, they have ntroduced new dcutes
nto the study o mora deveopment.
AAA A ttt trrr ruuu u sss smmm m
Atrusm does not dene mora rues n orma terms. Rather than
beng nterested n how the structure o mora thought becomes more
sophstcated over tme, the advocates o ths approach are nterested n
the content o an atrustc (other-centered) moraty and how t can be
ncucated n chdren. They take t or granted that the essence o
- 24 -
moraty s se-sacrce and duty, especay dutu acts done or the
benet o others. Nartn Homan (+,;o), a eadng member o the
atrustc schoo, has decared that every mora person ees a certan
amount o permanent gut, or not devotng hs or her entre e to the
servce o others. Ths pervasve gut s norma and non-neurotc. lack
o such gut ndcates decent mora deveopment.
The major ocus o the atrustc schoo s the deveopment o
atrustc or, as s t s requenty caed, prosoca behavor. Nuch eort
has been devoted to ndng out how such behavor deveops and how t
can be encouraged. Such research nvaraby presupposes that (+) mora
behavor s atrustc behavor, () soca exstence constanty requres, and
benets rom, atrustc behavor (hence the term prosoca), and ()
psychoogsts shoud work to oster prosoca behavor. lets consder each
o these presuppostons n turn.
lll lsss s aaa addd dvvv vaaa annn nccc ceee eddd d mmm mooo orrr raaa a rrr reee eaaa asss sooo onnn n nnn nggg g aaa a ttt trrr ruuu u sss sttt t ccc c''' '
Some o the dcutes rased by the atrustc concepton are
apparent n an eary study by one o ts oremost exponents, Nancy
Esenberg (Esenberg-Berg, +,;,). Ths study nvestgated the
deveopment o prosoca mora reasonng by means o demmas smar
to Kohbergs. However, Esenbergs probems were prosoca demmas.
They posed a cear choce between actng atrustcay and reusng to do
so.
Esenberg has auted Kohberg or restrctng the doman o mora
reasonng to ssues o mora and potca justce (n ths respect, her
crtque s convergent wth our own). She cams that mora reasonng
about prosoca acts must aso be ncuded, and that chdren and
adoescents may dspay more advanced reasonng about prosoca ssues
than about aws and nsttutons. Nore mportant, she beeves that more
advanced reasonng w ead to more prosoca choceswhch may we
sut the unstated bas n Kohbergs stage scheme, despte hs proessed
neutraty about the content o mora judgments. vhen overrdng dutes
prescrbed by orma soca moraty do not appy, Esenberg mantans, the
needs o others aways get mora prorty:
lt may be dcut to justy puttng ones own needs beore those
o another n a prosoca conct or any but hedonstc reasons because
there are no orma rues, prohbtons, or obgatons n prosoca
demmas that the ndvdua can use to justy gnorng the others
needs (Esenberg-Berg, +,;,, p. +,).
ln Esenbergs eary study, + chdren rom nd to +th grade were
gven ( mora judgment story probems, each o whch eatured a conct
between the actors wants and those o a needy other. ln one story, Bob, a
swmmer, has to decde between donatng hs servces as a physca
therapy nstructor or crpped chdren and devotng enough tme to
practce or mportant swmmng compettons. ln another, a coege
student s asked to donate bood over severa weeks, at the cost o physca
weakness, oss o job, and dsrupton o studes. ln a o the stores, the
- 25 -
atrustc act w have heavy costs or the actor, and the pan and sacrce
are stressed. Nonetheess, the partcpants n the study were expected to
regard the atrustc act as moray obgatory.
A the same, there were penty o non-atrustc responses8 o
the partcpants gave at east one. Esenberg cassed uy , o the
non-atrustc responses as hedonstc or pragmatc. By contrast, the
reasons gven or the prosoca choces oowed a deveopmenta trend
through stages ke Kohbergs (Stages + through , as dened n terms o
dea types, were represented).
Esenberg has extended ths ne o research over many studes,
examnng the growth and decne o varous types o reasonng on
prosoca demmas as deveopment proceeds. The same categores o
mora reasonng have been retaned throughout ths work, ncudng
pragmatc and hedonstc. However, the ater studes (e.g., Esenberg,
Ner, She, NcNaey, 8 Shea, +,,+) no onger report how many non-
atrustc choces were made on the demmas! ve can ony presume that
such choces are st regarded as beng based on hedonstc or pragmatc
reasonng.
vhy are the negatve responses nvaraby xated at stage '
Esenberg equates moraty wth atrustc choces, so a non-atrustc
response, n the ace o an obvous commandment to duty, can ony be
attrbuted to seshness or expedency. Noreover, the ony stage n
Kohbergs mode whch ncudes expct appeas to ones own goas s
stage , the pragmatc-hedonstc orentaton. Ths s a preconventona
stage, characterstc o mdde chdhood. lt reects a prmtve concepton
o ones reatonshp to others, and no consderaton at a o the bass or
rues governng soca behavor. The conventona stages, whch mark the
begnnngs o such consderaton, are dened so as to excude reerences to
ones own goas rom mora reasonng: Stage s based on wantng to
conorm and be socay acceptabe, and Stage ( s concerned wth
mantanng the exstng soca order. These stages woud be based
toward atrustc choces to the story probems n any case, snce atrusm s
part o the receved moraty n our cuture. And a mora deense o ones
own goas s rued out n the postconventona stages, because t woud be
ncompatbe wth the overty Kantan concepton o mora rues expressed
at Stages and .
No doubt many o the reusas to endorse an atrustc act came
unaccompaned by sophstcated arguments. The receved moraty has no
pace or prncpes that deend ones mora ownershp over ones own e,
and conuson or ratonazaton or deance toward soca expectatons are
predctabe consequence. But suppose that a respondent to Esenbergs
demmas gave a we organzed speech, statng that her own happness
was her hghest goa, that human ourshng was her mora standard, that
ndependence and productvty were o the oremost mportance to her,
that someone eses need dd not mpose a mora obgaton on her to
satsy t, and that se-sacrce s destructve to human e and happness,
a backed by quotatons rom Arstote, Rand, and a dozen other emnent
thnkers' To no ava. Her reasonng woud
- 26 -
st be categorzed as Stage . Yet at Stage , no artcuated mora or
soca phosophy s supposed to be present. ln act, Esenbergs stage
scheme woud not derentate between such a sophstcated response and
the at statement that Bob shoudnt hep the crpped chdren because he
doesnt ee ke t.
(
ln sum, Esenbergs scorng system presumes that a prncped
reusa to perorm an atrustc act cannot exst. The nsstence on makng
se-sacrce moray obgatory s a Kantan bas. lt denes mora
recognton to a concepton ke eudamonsm, whch recognzes the
obgaton not to voate another persons rghts but does not embrace
generazed, unchosen mora obgatons to do thngs or others. Havng
decded a pror that reusas to act atrustcay are moray mmature,
Esenberg has prevented herse rom ever notcng any counterexampes
to her thess.
lll lsss s ppp prrr rooo osss sooo occc c aaa a bbb beee ehhh haaa avvv v ooo orrr r aaa a ttt trrr ruuu u sss sttt t ccc caaa a yyy y mmm mooo ottt t vvv vaaa attt teee eddd d''' '
Despte these crtcsms, we beeve that Esenbergs work deserves
commendaton or ts cear statement that atrustc acts nvove genune
se-sacrce. By se-sacrce, we mean (and we assume Esenberg
means) gvng up a vaue that the actor regards as more mportant or one
that s ess mportant (an actor who gves up a greater vaue or a esser
rom an observers perspectve has smpy made a mstake, be t trva or
tragc). Nost prosoca research does not venture beyond the acquston
and perormance o prosoca behavor, and does not mantan a cear
dstncton between acts whose eect s to benet others and acts that are
atrustcay motvated (see, or nstance, the revews by Nussen 8
Esenberg-Berg, +,;;, Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-vaxer, 8 hapman, +,8, and
Sharabany 8 Bar-Ta, +,8, and see the probng crtque o theores o
atrustc motvaton by Batson, +,8;).
Just as there s a wde range o possbe motves or prosoca acts,
there s consderabe dversty n conceptons o prosoca behavor:
A denton o prosoca behavor that s east commttng
theoretcay s acton that benets another person. hdren, by
ths denton, are prosoca. They are hepu to others. They
can show consderaton or others eengs and ndgnaton over
cruety. They engage n cooperatve ventures and share
possessons. They may rsk ther own weare to protect or
rescue another. The unty that jons these derent behavors s
ther postve consequences or the recpents. n the same
externa orms o the chds generosty, there are possbtes o
an ngenuous joy o gvng, a se-servng manpuaton o another
person, a cacuated but panu decson to share, or a prncped
response out o a sense o duty. vhch o these quay as
prosoca behavor' Some nvestgators assume an underyng
egosm o prosoca behavor, whereas others beeve egosm and
prosoca

4
For that matter, the advocacy of genuine hedonism or pragmatism as a moral
philosophy requires cognitive powers well beyond those of Stage 2. Would anyone
classify Epicurus or William James as an unreflective Stage 2 thinker?
- 27 -
behavor to be nherenty contradctory. St others are
unconcerned about motves. (Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-vaxer, 8
hapman, +,8, p. (;8)
An act that appears to be atrustc (or nstance, hepng someone
n need) coud thus be motvated by: (+) sncere bee that atrustc acts
are requred by mpersona prncpes o duty, () speca sesh vaue
paced on the other person (ove, rendshp, admraton), () a genera
sense o benevoence toward other human bengs, even strangers, (() a
desre to mpress others by behavng accordng to the receved moraty,
whch prases atrustc acts, () desre to gan power by makng the
recpent ndebted or behoden to the gver. And ths s by no means a
compete st. vhch o these motves predomnates has proound
mpcatons or the actors herarchy o vaues, mora atttudes,
personaty, and sense o se-worth, not to menton what vrtues ( any)
the actor shoud be credted wth, and what other prosoca conduct the
actor s key to engage n.
lt s worth notng that some mora deveopment researchers
consder prosoca behavor a worthy topc o study even though they are
psychoogca egosts and thereore do not beeve n the possbty o
actons n the rst category, those that are atrustcay motvated.
lebert (+,;,), or nstance, mantans that mora reasonng and
conduct arse out o the nnate se-nterest o the ndvdua organsm,
whose verba and nonverba nterpersona deangs wth others are shaped
by the aw o eect that governs the actvtes o a vng bengs. The
emphass o ths perspectve s on experenced, perceved, or antcpated
rewards and punshments (p. ).
lrom leberts standpont, an apparenty atrustc act coud have
just about any motve except a truy atrustc one. lt s not cear to us why
prosoca actons woud contnue to be a coherent topc o study ths
were so. Gven leberts endorsement o mora reatvsm and hs dm and
thoroughy Hobbesan vew o human nature, t woud seem that
prosoca n hs vocabuary merey sgnes whatever knd o soca
behavor gets rewarded n a partcuar socety. vas hdng Jews rom the
Nazs prosoca behavor' Accordng to Nussen and Esenberg-Berg (+,;;)
t was, rom the Naz standpont t assuredy was not. vhose denton o
prosoca behavor oows rom leberts stated poston' ve suspect that
lebert, despte hs avowed dena that any mora commtment underes
hs eorts to substtute prosoca or voent behavor n teevson
programmng (+,;,, p. (), s n act commtted to atrusm (he does
expcty dene moraty as soca).
vhether leberts poston s tenabe or not, eudamonsts are not
Hobbesans and do not accept soca earnng as a genera expanaton o
mora deveopment. ve agree wth Esenberg and other advocates o
Kantan atrusm that atrustc behavor s possbehuman bengs can act
aganst what they regard as ther se-nterest, they can gve up a greater
vaue or a esser vaue. ve dsagree wth ther proposton that human
bengs ought to act atrustcay.
- 28 -
There s no doubt, n any case, about the motve that a Kantan
atrust must havethe Kantan atrust must act out o duty. Actng out o
se-nterested concern or another s ceary not actng out o duty. Actng
to gan the approva o others s not actng out o duty. Duty comes nto
pay when there s no strong persona vaue nvoved or when persona
vaues woud be harmed by the act.
To be knd where one can s a duty, and there are, moreover, many
persons so sympathetcay consttuted that wthout any motve o
vanty or seshness they nd an nner satsacton n spreadng joy, and
rejoce n the contentment o others whch they have made possbe.
however dutu and amabe t may be, that knd o acton has no
true mora worth But assume that the mnd o that rend o
manknd was couded by a sorrow o hs own whch extngushed a
sympathy wth the ot o others and that he st had the power to
benet others n dstress, but that ther need et hm untouched
because he was preoccuped wth hs own need. And now suppose hm
to tear hmse, unsocted by ncnaton, out o ths dead nsensbty
and to perorm ths acton ony rom duty and wthout any
ncnatonthen or the rst tme hs acton has genune mora worth
(Kant, +;8/+,,, p. ,8).
Prosoca behavor researchers requenty gnore the dstnctons
that we have just drawn. Some even a back on a behavorst or soca
earnng poston: So ong as parents and teachers can arrange ncentves
that encourage the deveopng chd to perorm acts that benet others,
the motves dont matter. Yet the deveopmenta course and consequences
o prosoca acts drected toward rends and oved ones, or motvated by
generazed benevoence, or done out o duty, or mpeed by a desre to
ee superor to the recpent are key to be derent n each case.
ln act, we thnk o prosoca acts n terms o ther underyng
motves, rather than ther superca smartes (ther presumed benet
to others) they do not orm a coherent psychoogca category. ertany
not a coherent category wthn mora deveopment. A theory o mora
acts s a theory o acts that are motvated by mora conceptons, not o
acts that others happen to thnk are mora (locke, +,8). A reasonabe
theory o mora deveopment w not attempt a untary expanaton o
the nature or orgns o prosoca acts. They are earned n so many
derent ways and done or so many derent reasons that there s no
reason to expect such an expanaton.
lll lsss s aaa a ttt trrr ruuu u sss sttt t ccc c bbb beee ehhh haaa avvv v ooo orrr r ppp prrr rooo osss sooo occc c aaa a ''' '
Atrustc acts are sad to be prosocabeneca or human
socetes, even necessary or them to uncton successuy. Atrustc acts
are requenty equated wth prosoca acts, acts wth beneca
consequences or others. Yet t s remarkaby easy to denty acts that
benet others but are not atrustc, and acts that are atrustcay
motvated but actuay harm others.
Equatng atrustc behavor wth prosoca behavor betrays a ack
o understandng o the actua operatons o soca reatonshps,
exchanges, and nsttutons. As socoogsts and economsts are we aware,
- 29 -
one cannot derve the consequences o a pocy or nsttuton rom the
ntent o the actors nvoved, or vce versa (Hayek, +,;, Scheng, +,;8,
Sowe, +,8o, +,8;).
On the one hand, resuts that are beneca to everyone oten ow
rom purey se-nterested behavor. lree market economsts have
stressed the success o a market economy n coordnatng the pans o
many ndvduas, each o whom possesses mted and specazed
knowedge (and very partcuarstc goas), wthout conscous drecton or
desgn (Smth, +;;/+,8+, Hayek, +,(8). Nost exchanges n a market
economy are carred on by ndvduas seekng prot. Prot and oss, as
consequences o a ree prce system, ndcate whether an ndvdua or
organzaton s satsyng consumer demand or not. ln act, they are
necessary the economc system s to coordnate peopes pans at a. ln a
system wthout ree market prces, prot, and oss, ratona economc
cacuaton s mpossbe. No decsons can be made about what to
produce, and how much, that woud satsy consumer demand (Nses,
+,/+,, +,(,). The mpossbty o ratona cacuaton under socasm
s no mere exercse n hypothetca anayss, as the recent coapse o the
Sovet and Eastern European economc systems has made panuy cear.
Those who equate atrustc wth prosoca behavor, however,
concude that the resuts o prot-seekng actvtes, whch on the ace o t
are not done or atrustc motves, must be nvaraby njurous to others.
Nussen and Esenberg-Berg (+,;;) see no good n competton and se-
asserton, whch are purey antsoca (that s, non-atrustc) and must
thereore produce nothng but dssenson and voence.
On the other hand, many actvtes ostensby motvated by
atrusm are by no means prosoca n ther eects. They are actuay
harmu to others. There are many such cases at the eve o pubc
pocy, or nstance, mnmum wage aws supposedy nsure wages above
the mnmum or everyone. Eementary economc anayss ndcates that
mnmum wages cannot brng about such a resut, nstead they put out o
work anyone whose abor woud receve an oer o ess than the
mnmum wage. And there s some mora case to overrde the economc
one (or nstance, an argument that beng unempoyed or on the doe s
better or human bengs than workng or ess than the mnmum wage), t
s ncumbent on the proponents o ths pocy to step orward wth t.
lndeed, when atrustcay motvated actons are based on an
assumpton about what s good or the recpentan assumpton that the
recpent may not sharethen the danger o paternasm ooms: The gver
presumes that the recpent must not know what s good or hm or her,
and must even be ncapabe o makng responsbe decsons. Atrusm, at
the very east, s abe to coexst wth a consderabe degree o dsrespect
or others (and crtcs woud say that t actvey breeds dsrespect).
At a more persona eve, consder the to on those who make
major e decsons on the bass o wantng to pease ther parents. Those
who choose ther careers or ther marrages on ths bass are key to be
unhappy or the rest o
- 30 -
ther ves, and one wonders whether ther uture customers and cents, et
aone ther spouses, are best served by peope who have made such choces
atrustcay. Not to menton the way anyone woud ee on beng tod, l
do not ove you because o any sterng or attractve quates that you
mght have, because o anythng about you that mght appea or be
attractve to me. No, l ove you just as l ove everyone ese, out o duty.
Not every actvty that s we-ntentoned succeeds n accompshng
anythng ke the desred resut. Equatng atrustc behavor wth prosoca
behavor eads rresstby to the ase concuson that any atrustcay
motvated actvty w actuay be good or others. l anythng, the
reverse s more key.
lll lsss s nnn nccc cuuu u ccc caaa attt t nnn nggg g aaa a ttt trrr ruuu u sss sttt t ccc c bbb beee ehhh haaa avvv v ooo orrr r bbb beee ennn neee e ccc c aaa a ''' '
ln genera, prosoca behavor researchers have not recognzed any
damagng consequences, not to menton -ntentoned uses, o supposedy
prosoca deas and programs. ve shoud be remnded that accordng to
Kant (+;8/+,,, pp. ,-,), Nothng n the word can possby be
conceved whch coud be caed good wthout quacaton except a good
w, .e., a w moved ony by duty. lor Kant, the consequences o acts
motvated by duty were moray rreevant. ln act, he acknowedged that
oowng the commandments o duty woud thwart ones ncnatons and
was thereore key to make one mserabe. As or the benecares o
ones acts, Kant (+;,;/+,,+) dd counse makng the happness o others
ones goa, but hastened to add that merey gratyng ther ncnatons s
not what he had n mndso we mght be pardoned or wonderng the
consequences or others mght turn out any better.

ve can ustrate the

decdedy mxed consequences o atrustcay motvated behavor by
examnng two socetes that Nussen and Esenberg hod up as exempars.
Nussen and Esenberg (+,;;, p. ) prase the Hop or ther mora
deas o hepuness, avodance o aggresson and concern or the genera
weare, wth whch Hop chdren are socazed. ompetton, dssenson,
and se-asserton are strkngy absent n the tradtona Hop communty,
they note approvngy. There are costs to dscouragng competton,
however, though one woud not know ths rom Nussen and Esenbergs
account. Schoeck (+,;o) has ponted out that n cutures whch do not use
conceptons o abty or uck to expan an ndvduas success or aure,
ness and msortune are attrbuted to wtchcrat nstead. l larmer A has
an abundant corn crop, and larmer Bs corn wthers and s attacked by
ocusts, t s not because larmer A got more ran, or happened to be out o
the path o the ocust swarm, or worked harder. lt must be because
larmer A used back magc to mprove hs crop at the expense o larmer
Bs. larmer B ees justed n castng hs own spes (or usng more
tangbe and

5
To his credit, Kant (1797/1991, p. 454) did wonder whether a nobleman who
paternalistically looks after the welfare of his serfs deserves moral credit for his
actions when he thereby robs them of their freedom.
- 31 -
reaby njurous means) to get back at larmer A. Prvate stran and
dscord urk beneath the pubc harmony n Hop socety, or the Hop
beeve that ness and msortune are caused by wtchcrat, and everyone
ears beng magcay harmed by others. Boastng about ones good
ortune s to be avoded because t w str up envy and nduce others to
start sorcerous operatons (Schoeck, +,;o, p. ().
lets consder another socety whose educatona practces earned
Nussen and Esenbergs unreserved prase. Unke the Hop, ths was not a
peaceu socety. ln the USSR at the tme they wrote, atrusm and
orentaton toward the coectve were ncucated by the schoo system and
by organzatons or chdren and youth ke the Young Poneers. lor ths
program o character deveopment they had nothng but approbaton
(Nussen 8 Esenberg-Berg, +,;;, pp. ;-,). A quck hstory o the Sovet
educatona system mght have made ts meanng and consequences more
cear. Anton Nakarenko, a eadng educator under the Stan regme,
orgnated the emphass on tranng chdren to obey the coectve. He
amed to mod chdren nto servants o the State. He reorganzed the
schoo system aong mtary nes, suppressng +,os experments n se-
organzaton and se-dscpne n educaton, on the grounds that chdren
exposed to them were unkey to adopt the atttudes desred by the Stan
dctatorshp (Sprng, +,8o, pp. -;). One o the vrtues st beng taught
n the Sovet educatona system n the +,;os was wngness to denounce
to the authortes any members o ones group who ventured the wrong
opnons (see Bronenbrenner, +,;o, the same source rom whch Nussen
and Esenberg drew ther gowng account). vho w mourn the passng
o ths approach to educaton'
Prosoca behavor researchers woud be ar more credbe were
they to emphasze vountary cooperaton and vountary assstance to
others. Prase or the Sovet educatona system conrms the worst ears
o the crtcs o atrusm, who have ong argued that a major uncton o
atrustc deas, and o atrustc mora tranng, s to make peope submt
to regous authortes and to tyrannca governments (Rand, +,().
Atrusm commands everyone to sacrce or everyone ese. vere t to be
pursued strcty, there woud be no net benet rom the round o sacrces.
The mpementaton o atrusm thereore requres the dentcaton o a
moray prveged cass, a group o peope who are deemed specay
worthy o recevng sacrces rom others. Usuay these moray
prveged casses are the needy, ther representatves (rea or aeged),
and, most mportant o a, the ruers. Atrustc mora systems are aways
nvoked by those who seek coercve authorty over others, or nstance,
the hurch n Nedeva Europe, or the ltaan lascsts. A eadng sogan o
the Nazs was Gemennutz geht vor Egennutz the common good goes
beore the ndvdua good (Peko, +,8).
lets be cear here. ve are not sayng that prosoca behavor
researchers am to make everyone submt to an omnpotent government.
No doubt most o them woud be horred at such a prospect. No doubt
they woud be prepared to argue that authortarans and totatarans are
not actng n the true sprt o atrusm, but
- 32 -
are nstead tryng to stea ts mora prestge to ratonaze ther actons.
vhat we woud ke to hear s some open dscusson o these matters. Are
prosoca behavor researchers reay advocatng atrusm' Does atrusm
requre a moray prveged cass to whom sacrces are owed' l so, how
can ths mora prvege be justed' ls atrusm vountary, or does t mean
compeng unwng ndvduas to make sacrces' l so, on what grounds
can such compuson be justed'
ln the contemporary deveopmenta terature, such questons are
passed over n sence, because whatever s atrustcay motvated s
presumed to be mora.
PPP Prrr rooo osss sooo occc c aaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t::: : lll lsss s ttt thhh heee errr reee e sss suuu uccc chhh h aaa a ttt thhh h nnn nggg g''' '
ve can now summarze the ssues that the atrusts have not
addressed. (+) They have uncrtcay accepted Kantan duty and se-
sacrce as the bass or ethcs. () They have equated prosoca acts
(those that are beneca to the unctonng o socety) wth atrustcay
motvated acts. ln act, there are acts that are prosoca n eect, but ack
atrustc motves, and acts that have atrustc motves, but are not
prosoca n eect. () They have overooked soca and economc
processes n whch the sesh and greedy behavor o ndvdua actors
ends up havng beneca consequences or others. (() They have passed
over harmu uses o atrustc tranng, ncudng ts potca empoyment
to ensure submsson to the State.
laure to respond to any o these probems woud be ata or the
atrustc approach. Even a weaker versonone that merey cams that
atrustc acts w tend to be o more benet to others than non-atrustc
actswoud have a ot o expanng to do. But probem () s the most
devastatng, because mora acts have to be motvated by mora
conceptons, and a myrad o motves can undere any partcuar
prosoca act, then there can be no such thng as prosoca mora
deveopment. The term prosoca as currenty used s expanatory
empty n accountng or mora actons or or mora deveopment.
Naturay, as parents and as teachers, we have an nterest n
preventng chdren rom buyng other chdren. Nost o us regard t as
beneca to teach chdren not to rdcue other chdren who are derent
rom themseves. ve can a agree that n many cases t s vauabe to
encourage chdren to be knd and hepu to others. Some o us may even
strve or a mora atmosphere n whch peope w carry out heroc acts o
resstance to tyranny, ke hdng Jews rom the Nazs. But there s no
need or any o these sorts o actons to be atrustcay motvated, and
nothng to be ganed by regmentng dverse knds o acton, varousy
motvated, wth derent deveopmenta orgns and courses, under the
mseadng banner o prosoca behavor.
lormast and atrust accounts o mora deveopment unduy
narrow the mora doman, excude genune nstances o prncped mora
reasonng rom consderaton or downgrade them unary, and rue
questons about the se and about mora personaty out o consderaton.
ln addton, the atrust approach makes
- 33 -
ceary ncorrect assumptons about the nature and consequences o
atrustcay motvated behavor. oud the Kantan approach be
deveoped n other drectons besdes the two that have been taken
hstorcay' Naybe so, but t doesnt eave much room. lmpersonasm
and antpersonasm are nherent n Kants poston, as s the narrowng o
the mora doman. lormasm s deepy rooted n t. And wthout the
drempton between moraty and persona vaues, nothng dstncty
Kantan woud reman.
lt s tme to consder the advantages that a eudamonstc
perspectve mght brng to the study o mora deveopment. ve w begn
by contrastng eudamonst and Kantan answers to the queston vhy be
mora' and w concude by consderng what the study o mora
deveopment mght ook ke once mora character becomes a centra
concern and the mora doman s accorded somethng ke ts true breadth
and dversty.
BBB Beee eyyy yooo onnn nddd d KKK Kaaa annn nttt t::: : NNN Neee ewww w ddd d rrr reee eccc cttt t ooo onnn nsss s nnn n mmm mooo orrr raaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t
vvv vhhh hyyy y bbb beee e mmm mooo orrr raaa a ''' '
Eudamonsm and Kantansm are undamentay opposed on the
mora sgncance o prvate goas and vaues, and on the purpose o
moraty n human e. lndeed, eudamonsm s prepared to answer
questons about the purpose o moraty, whereas Kantansm s not. vhy
be mora' vhy do human bengs need a moraty' Does a ths uss
about moraty have any meanng at a' Eudamonsm does not take the
exstence o mora rues or granted. lt traces the need or moraty to the
requrements o human e and human ourshng. vhether t has done so
successuy or not can be questoned, but the queston s subject to ratona
debate. Kantansm, on the other hand, s barred n prncpe rom oerng
an answer to that queston. The ground o [mora aws] must not be
sought n the nature o man, or n the crcumstances n whch he s
paced... (Kant, +;8/+,,, p. 8,). loowng mora rues cannot be sad
to be good or anyone, n any sense. To expan how oowng mora rues
ads one n achevng any goa, or nstantates any goa, s to make them
hypothetca nstead o categorca, to make them dependent on
ncnatons, n other words, to dsquay them rom beng mora.
Kohberg acknowedged ths very dcuty. ln the end, he
admtted that Stage coud not be a uy adequate endpont or mora
deveopment, because a se-contaned ormasm or justce reasonng
cannot answer the queston, vhy be mora' Beyond the eusve Stage ,
Kohberg and Power (+,8+) came to post a sot Stage ;, a stage o
ratona mystcsm. Ths stage nvoves regous specuatons about the
nature o the word and the meanng o human e, mystca experence,
transcendenta umnaton, and adopton o the roe o prophet, sant, or
guru. Despte the constant drumbeat o assertons that moraty s purey
ratona or cogntve, n the end Kantan approaches must rey on
transcendenta umnaton or on mystca nsghts nto the qurks and
- 34 -
cravngs o the noumena se. The bass or moraty es orever beyond
ratona comprehenson.
O course, the noumena w, an unknowabe agency unreated to
any rea human desres, vaues, or goas, s not be ound n any
contemporary account o mnd, we thnk or good reason (though or a
dssentng vew see Robnson, +,,+). vthout the noumena se, modern-
day Kantans have to account somehow or the orgns or grounds o a o
the commands to duty that mora actors and reasoners are supposedy
aware o. The atrusts have no other bass besdes ntuton and popuar
sentment or the se-sacrcng dutes on whch they nsst. The ormasts
have ther procedures or dervng mora concusons about soca behavor
by pressng nonmora persona nterests through a ter o
unversazabty (Raws, +,;+, Gewrth, +,;8, Habermas, +,;,). Such
attempts are doomed rom the outset (Rasmussen 8 Den Uy, +,,+,
Veatch, +,;, +,;,, +,8o). The gu that the Kantans have opened up
between nterests and moraty s too wde. l persona nterests not the
sort o thng that coud ever be mora, how s t possbe to extract mora
rues rom them' (Veatch, +,8o).
Kantans mght respond that psychoogy smpy does not nqure
nto the metaphysca bass o moraty. ve are wng to grant ths
objecton up to a pont. Athough psychoogy can nvestgate the
consequences or the actor o harborng one set o mora vaues or another,
expanng why peope shoud be mora and justyng one mora vew vs-
a-vs other mora vews beong n the provnce o phosophy. lt s not our
task as psychoogsts to mount a u exposton and deense o eudamonst
ethcs. lor that, t s best to turn to the ong ro o phosophers begnnng
wth Arstote ( B/+,(+) and contnung n our own era wth Den Uy
(+,,+), Kaumann (+,;), Norton (+,;), Rand (+,(), Rasmussen (+,8,
+,,, Den Uy 8 Rasmussen, +,;8, +,,, Rasmussen 8 Den Uy, +,,+), and
Veatch (+,, +,;+). Besdes, any concepton o mora deveopment worth
adoptng w have to expan how peope can come to beeve n and ve
by mora codes radcay derent rom anythng eudamonstc. But even
the most emprcay bound descrpton o mora deveopment has to honor
the act that some peope ask vhy be mora'and answer ths queston
n ways that nether the ormasts nor the atrusts coud ever
acknowedge.
The Kantan dremptons and constrctons do much more than
rustrate our phosophca nqures. Because the pursut o prvate goas s
consdered prudenta and nonmora, key questons o persona choce and
persona growth are thrust outsde the ream o moraty atogether.
vhat about Bob, or nstance' vhat gudance do ormasm and
atrusm gve hm whe caught n the tos o Esenbergs demma'
Nether has anythng to say to Bob about the wsdom o tryng to become
a champon swmmer, whether the amount o tme and pan he w have
to devote to hs quest s worthwhe, whether some other drecton n hs
e mght not be better or hm. Bobs eorts n these areas o hs e are
reduced to hedonstc or pragmatc gratcaton o appettes, mere gvng
n to ncnatons, and theres nothng chaengng, dcut,
- 35 -
or mportant about them. vhats truy mora, whats chaengng and
dcut, s not what Bob does n pursut o a career, ony gvng up that
career to gve swmmng essons to crpped chdren woud be mora.
Because the pursut o prvate goas s regarded as purey appettve,
ormasm and atrusm oer no advce about what s good or the
ndvdua, just perodc admontons to gve t up, generay on the beha
o some other ndvdua, whose good s equay -dened (Rand, +,(,
Veatch, +,8o). vhere Arstote coud speak meannguy o appettve
ratonaty or ratona appettes, [post-Kantan] phosophy dchotomzed
reason and appette to such an extent that they became rreconcabe...
The resut o ths approach has been modern mans vacaton between
sentmentaty and/or hedonsm on the one hand and deontoogca rgdty
n ethcs on the other (Rasmussen 8 Den Uy, +,,+, pp. ;-8).
ln act, crtcs o Kantan ethcs contend that the very noton o
mora rues as commands to duty undercuts mora responsbty. Dutes
are dvorced rom persona vaues, and oten n conct wth them. Ths
conct may end up destroyng our motvaton to be mora, or ead us to
deny or repress persona vaues, or both. Rand (+,;o) consders the
concept o duty to be ant-teeoogca, undermnng ones sense o the
ecent and the na causaty o ones actons. Actons done out o duty
are not done to acheve any goa, nor wth any regard to ther
consequences. How can one ee any responsbty or actons one dd not
cause' Rasmussen and Den Uy pont out that the attempt to reduce
everythng n ethcs to unversa orma rues undercuts responsbty n a
derent way as we: Snce contngency s a eature o practca acton,
the eort to remove t necesstates conormty o w and acton... vhat s
aowed to quay as good s admtted ony t appes n precsey the
same manner to everyone equay (+,,+, p. 8).
Agan, when we set out to descrbe the many possbe varetes o
mora deveopment, we have to acknowedge those ndvduas who
deveop Kantan conceptons aong wth a the rest. How hodng to a
Kantan vew o ethcs aects ones sense o responsbty or ones sense o
beng abe to get ethca gudance or ones actons s n that respect a
secondary queston. But the exstence o these drawbacks, and the act
that other mora conceptons have radcay derent ways o addressng
ssues o mora gudance and responsbty, suggests that we shoud nether
restrct the mora doman as Kantans woud urge us to, nor restrct
ourseves to ther vew o mora rues and mora justcaton.
vhen we no onger accept a Kantan mode o the study o mora
deveopment, many possbtes open up. ls mora deveopment smpy a
department o cogntve deveopment, as Kohberg wanted to beeve' Or
must those who study t dea wth goas, vaues, emotons, personates,
and habts o acton' Are the ssues around whch peope deveop ther
mora orentatons to be restrcted to our reatonshps wth other peope,
to questons o rghts and justce, or questons o carng or others' Or must
we dea wth se-conceptons, se-understandng, and the deas and ams
that ndvduas set or themseves' ls
- 36 -
mora deveopment the sort o thng that coud have stages' Or are such
deveopmenta stages as make ther appearance n mora deveopment
reay stages n our understandngs o ourseves, n the unodng o our
goas, n the possbe perspectves we can take on other ndvduas or on
socety at arge'
vhat s the roe o eudamonsm n a o thss t to mpose new
mts o ts own, and to set up a new most adequate hghest stage o
deveopment' Or s ts uncton not to prescrbe but rather to drect our
concern toward the deveopment o vaues and the se, to open up the
mora doman, the aspects o the human beng that must consdered n the
study o mora deveopment, and the space o possbe mora conceptons
whose deveopment we must strve to account or'
NNN Nooo orrr raaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t sss s ppp peee errr rsss sooo onnn naaa a ttt tyyy y ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t
A most serous consequence o Kantan ormasm and
antpersonasm s the artca spt t has produced between mora
deveopment and personaty deveopment. Surey the deveopment o
the se, or mora character, s part o personaty deveopment. The
deeper drempton between cognton and motvaton, and the reuctance
o cogntve deveopmentasts to trespass on terrtory camed by
lreudans

and other personaty theorsts, have wthout a doubt
contrbuted to ths spt (not that we recommend the use o lreudan
methods or theores when mora deveopmentasts cross over nto ths
prevousy orbdden terrtoryhrstopher 8 Bckhard, +,,o, Bckhard,
+,,, hrstopher, +,,). But the Kantan rejecton o teeoogy has drven
n a bg wedge o ts own. l the goas, desres and nterests o the
phenomena se have no reaton to moraty (except as temptatons to be
ressted, or spurous ncentves to do what ought to be done out o duty),
reason and appette can never meet, then the deveopment o the se and
personaty can be saey gnored.
ln consequence, psychoogsts have typcay not regarded dentty
(Erkson, +,o) as centra to mora deveopment. lndeed, t s sad
(lanagan, +,,+) that Kohberg ntay thought he coud avod Ggans
objectons to hs theory on the grounds that they pertaned ony to ego
deveopment. Nora deveopmentasts have pushed asde achevement
motvaton (nothng but the expedent gratcaton o appettes, o
course). oncerns wth persona growth, se-esteem, and se-asserton
have been et to the psychotherapsts (see Branden, +,,, +,,(, Breggn,
+,8o, Nasow, +,8, and many others) despte ther cear reevance to
mora deveopment. And the ndvduasm nherent n much o cnca
psychoogy cashes wth the atrusm and ant-personasm advocated by
most mora deveopmentasts (see vaterman, +,8+, or the ndvduast
sde o ths dspute, vaach 8 vaach, +,8, or the atrust sde). lt s
tme that mora deveopment and personaty deveopment were
rentegrated: vhy mght t not be
- 37 -
that n ethcs our prmary busness s wth our own characters and what
knds o persons we are to be and become' (Veatch, +,8o, p. ).

lt s worth notng that the Arstotean tradton (Arstote, +,(+,

Veatch, +,) and other major mora tradtons ke onucansm (ua,
+,8,, Den, +,8, Nunro, +,,, vaey, +,8), stress the mportance o
acqurng the vrtues as habts, as part o ones personaty, as second
nature. Vrtues rom a non-Kantan standpont are not rues emanatng
rom a ratona ragment o the se that knows nothng o personaty or
motvaton. They are practca means to vng the good e. Vrtues ke
kndness, courage, ntegrty, and prde, are aspects o personaty, and
poory understood ones at that (lanagan, +,,+). An account o mora
deveopment thereore needs to be stuated n an account o the
deveopment o vaues and o the se.
Our preerence s to undertake ths nqury wthn the nteractvst
ramework or studyng menta processes and ther deveopment. Among
the vrtues o ths approach are the ntegraton o cognton and motvaton
startng at the most prmtve eves o knowng and nteractng wth the
envronment, the emphass on goas and vaues (Bckhard, +,8oa,b), and
the rch array o constrants on deveopment, ncudng the herarchca
constrant that arses rom the exstence o a strcty ordered herarchy o
eves o knowng (ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,,).
lrom an nteractvst standpont (ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8), even
the smpest knowng system must have goas. And any system that can
earn (that s, change how t nteracts wth ts envronment) w be
capabe o changng ts goas or deveopng new ones. Goas can be
reated n two equay mportant ways. A goa can be nstrumentay
reated to another goa, as a means to an end, one goa can make use o
another. Or one goa can be reated to another goa by satsyng t, or
provdng an nstantaton o t. As we ascend to the second eve n the
herarchy o knowng eves, we become capabe o reectng on goas at
the ower eve, not smpy o thnkng about them or becomng conscous
o them, but aso o ormng goas about what knds o goas we shoud
have (that s, o constructng vaues). ve become capabe o havng goas
about goas, or as Tayor (+,;;) cas them, second-order desres. At the
thrd eve, we become capabe o ormng metavaues, or goas about the
sorts o vaues we coud and shoud have.
A vaue that deveops wth regard to a goa, or a metavaue that
deveops wth regard to a vaue, s one possbe expcaton or unodng o
the goas, vaues, and nteractve organzatons o the next ower knowng
eve. lt s an unodng o what was aready mpct n the
system. But t s ony one among a number o possbe unodngs, and the
unodng o one vaue aready mpct n the

6
Our concern with moral character does not imply our endorsement of efforts by a
former occupant of the Federal office of Drug Czar to promote character
education. Thanks to Peter Kahn for alerting us to this possible misunderstanding.
- 38 -
person s no guarantee o ts consstency wth other vaues or goas. The
resutng conct may ndeed resut n attempts to change goas or ways o
actng at ower knowng eves.
lrom the nteractve standpont, the se begns at eve one as the
goas and heurstcs that the chd deveops n order to nteract wth the
physca and soca envronments. Sehood at ths stage s mpct, a
matter o beng a se wthout knowng that se. At knowng-eve , the
chd becomes capabe o knowng that se, whch nvoves much more
than beng abe to use anguage or se-descrpton. Nore broady, the
chd can deveop metastrateges or managng physca and soca
nteractons n a wde range o stuatons. Such metastrateges presuppose
varous characterzatons o the chd, ncudng characterzatons as
competent or ncompetent, reabe or unreabe, ovabe or unovabe,
good or bad, but these characterzatons are not normay objects o
knowedge. The chd has an dentty but cannot know that dentty or
attempt to change t yet. At knowng-eve , the chd knows hs or her
se-representaton, ncudng much that was merey mpct at eve ,
and can compare hs or her se to aternatves, pass expct vaue
judgments on hmse or herse, and try to change n accordance wth
those judgments. That s, the chd w undergo expct dentty-
ormaton.
Among the vaues we can deveop that cannot be acqured
nstrumentay are se-reerenta vaues, vaues about the sorts o persons
we are or woud ke to be. They cannot be acqured nstrumentay
because they are not merey about goas or ways o nteractng at some
ower stagethey are about the entre person. The vaue o beng at
peace wth onese s se-reerenta, or nstance. There s no way to be
deberatey at peace wth onese. vhat are tradtonay consdered
vrtuesprde, courage, ntegrty, kndness, justce (n the persona sense,
not the potca one), productvty, honor, prudence (practca
wsdom)a have a se-reerenta aspect.
vhatever the ate o ths partcuar account, whch n any case we
have ony sketched, there s no way to avod somethng ke t n the study
o mora deveopment. Goas and vaues are omnpresent n deveopment.
A concern wth mora deveopment requres us to attend to the unodng
o vaues n genera and se-reerenta vaues n partcuar. Theores that
adhere to the Kantan drempton between moraty and vaues w never
have the breadth or the depth that are sorey needed.
lnteractvsm and eudamonsm turn out to have much n common:
the centraty accorded to vaues n deveopment, the reusa to turn
aspects o the whoe person nto barbed-wre compartments abeed
reason and ncnaton, the mportance o se-reecton, hgher-order
knowedge, and se-reerenta vaues, even the vew (Veatch, +,) that
much o mora deveopment s the acquston o sk n deang wth e
stuatons and not merey the appcaton o artcuated rues and
prncpes. But o course nothng n the nteractvst ramework orces a
bee n eudamonsm as the outcome o mora deveopment.
- 39 -
An extremey wde array o vaues can arse rom ths sort o
deveopmenta process, wth wdey varyng consequences or the
ndvdua. Vaues at the same eve o knowng can contradct one
another, vaues can unod at a hgher eve that contradct or deny goas
at a ower eve. There s penty o room or mora conct and even
regresson wthn ths ramework. And there needs to be.
NNN Nooo orrr raaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t sss s nnn nooo ottt t sss sooo occc c aaa a ccc cooo oggg gnnn n ttt t vvv veee e ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t
Nora deveopment as vewed rom a post-Kantan perspectve
ooks very derent. The ormasts, athuy drvng wedges between
reason and appette, have reduced mora deveopment to cogntve
deveopment. But not just any knd o cogntve deveopment w doas
an essentay other-regardng aar, mora cognton must be a speces o
soca cognton. The atrusts have been wng to open the door to
eengs, but ony those drecty reated to gut, soca understandng, or
chartabe acton (the eeng o beng bound by duty has so ar escaped
ther attenton). Hence t s has been assumed that roe-takng and
empathy, whch are cruca or understandng ones reatonshp wth
others, are equay cruca to the deveopment o mora reasonng
(Kohberg, +,,, Homan, +,;o, Damon, +,;;, Seman, +,8o) and to the
deveopment o prosoca thought and behavor (Nussen 8 Esenberg-
Berg, +,;;).
ve are now n a poston to reject ths ace equaton. As
eudamonsts and others have ponted out, not a mora probems are
soca. vhether to be honest wth onese or practce se-decepton s not
a soca ssue. Besdes, a gven eve o soca understandng can support a
wde range o mora postons. Shoud we expect, or nstance, that
understandng others eengs and vewponts better w necessary ead a
person to be more atrustc' The consequences o understandng another
persons eengs depend on what those eengs are and ones aready
deveoped vaues, ncudng ones concepton o obgatons toward others.
Better understandng may ead us to hep others or cooperate wth them.
lt may even ead to sacrcng some greater vaue o our own or ther
sake. lt may, on the other hand, ead to successu attempts to manpuate
others. lt may even ead to rejectng ther demands and reusng to
support ther projects. The consequences or mora deveopment o a
gven nstance o soca deveopment are wdey vared.
Besdes, soca deveopment s the deveopment, not just o soated
peces o knowedge, or soated competences, but o the entre person
(ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8, Bckhard, +,,). As mportant as roe-takng
mght be, mora deveopmentasts are not entted to ocus on t to such
an extent that they gnore the u compex o ways that we reate to
othersor to our physca envronment, or to ourseves.
l we reorent the study o mora deveopment to acknowedge the
u breadth o the mora doman, and the u extent o the mora
personates and mora conceptons that can deveop, we w have to
acknowedge the mutpcty o paths by whch these deveopments can
occur. Najor stages o mora deveopment,
- 40 -
dened n terms o Kohbergan cogntve structures, w have to a by
the waysde. Ths s not ony because what deveops must be dened n
terms much broader than the structure o arguments n response to
hypothetca demmas, t s because there are good reasons or
questonng any concepton o stages based on Pagetan cogntve
structures (ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8).
ve suspect, n act, that what pass or stages o mora
deveopment n the ormast approaches may reay just be stages o roe-
takng and other orms o soca understandng. Kohberg, n hs ater
wrtngs, characterzed hs stages as derent socomora perspectves,
drop the mora and what we get are stages o possbe perspectves on
socety. ln other words, the postve egacy o Kohbergs years o abor
may be Semans (+,8o) stages o soca understandng. To corroborate our
suspcons, when Ture (+,8a, b) tred to separate an understandng o
soca conventons rom mora reasonng, he ended up wth stages o
thnkng about soca conventon. There are no mora stages n hs
ramework.
That s not to deny the possbty o stages n the deveopment o
vaues, or o dentty, or n other reated areas. onstrants on the
processes o deveopment can yed steps n a deveopmenta sequence,
the ascent o the knowng-eves herarchy can yed u-bown major
stages based on a prncpe o reectve abstracton (ampbe 8 Bckhard,
+,,). lroncay, the aspect o mora deveopment that most ready ends
tse to a knowng-eves treatment s the deveopment o thnkng about
ones own mora vaues and those o others, provded, o course, that a
ratonay deensbe metaethca crtera are admtted to the hgher stages
(see Noshman, +,,, or a mora stage theory o precsey ths knd). Yet
Kohberg et a. (+,8) took pans to excude the deveopment o
metaethca consderatons rom the purvew o ther theory!
NNN Neee ewww w mmm meee ettt thhh hooo oddd dsss s ooo o sss sttt tuuu uddd dyyy y
A redenton o the mora doman, a reorentaton toward the
deveopment o vaues and the se, and a reconcepton o mora
deveopment theory mpy proound changes n our methods o emprca
study. The avored devces or assessng mora reasonng are demmas
about hypothetca stuatons: we te peope stores and ask them
questons about them. The demmas o Kohberg and hs oowers are
mted to the narrow set o ssues aowed by ormaststo potca and
ega justce. Under atrust nuence, we mght add demmas about
atrustc acts (athough we must aso score them ary). Under Ggans
nuence, we mght try to ensure that matters o carng and response get
covered, and we mght even expand our coverage to ntervews about
conceptons o moraty or about rea-e mora probems. ve mght even
be so bod as to ncude persona mora ssues n our ntervews. But there
s a ot more to mora deveopment than the knds o reasonng that can be
exhbted n responses to ntervew questons. lanagan (+,,+) s
appropratey skeptca, we thnk, o basng assessments o mora
deveopment excusvey on tak.
- 41 -
Our ways o beng, the goas and heurstcs nvoved n managng
our nteractons wth others, our endurng dspostons, our tanged
herarches o vaues, are not gong to manest themseves so easy n the
course o ntervews. Besdes, moraty s an area n whch many peope
experence nner concts. The mora anguage that they know and the
artcuated mora teachngs that they have heard usuay express the
receved vew o moraty wthn ther cuture. l ther practces and ther
unstated mora bees are substantay at varance wth the mora
anguage they have been taught, they may not be abe to artcuate these
bees eectvey on hypothetca demmas.
Eudamonstc phosophers (Arstote, B/+,(+, Veatch, +,,
Nussbaum, +,,oa,b) have oten sought to ustrate ther concepton o
moraty by pontng to the vrtues and aws o hstorca gures or
characters n cton. To test our deas about the prncpes and major
constrants n mora deveopment, we w be compeed to examne whoe
ves, or major portons o them, n context. ve w need to engage n the
comparatve bography o mora character, n much the same way that
Gardner (+,,) has used case studes to compare and contrast derent
knds o creatvty.

(These days a concern wth narratves, ncudng
bographca ones, mght seem to be an nvtaton to take the
hermeneutca route. That s not our ntenton. Athough we are
sympathetc wth contemporary hermeneutcs on a number o ssues, such
as the context-dependency o anguage, hstorcty n deveopment, and
the prmacy o practca actvty as a orm o knowedge, we part
company when hermeneutcsts uncrtcay accept a postvst vson o
scence, or when they promote a metaphyscs o ngustc deasmsee
ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8. The mportance o anguage notwthstandng,
human bengs do not begn ther ves as members o a anguage
communty, and human e s not ngustcay consttuted.)
Our survey o aternatves s hardy exhaustve, n any case. Nora
deveopment research w move n many drectons once t bursts the
connes o Kantansm.
RRR Reee ettt thhh h nnn nkkk k nnn nggg g mmm mooo orrr raaa a ddd deee evvv veee e ooo oppp pmmm meee ennn nttt t::: : HHH Haaa azzz zaaa arrr rddd dsss s aaa annn nddd d ooo oppp pppp pooo orrr rttt tuuu unnn n ttt t eee esss s
To an outsde observer, concerned as neary everyone s about
mora ssues, but not enmeshed n the ntrcaces and arcana o mora
deveopment research, the ed o mora deveopment s abe to appear
ngrown, stae, and crcumscrbed. The demmas, the scorng systems, the
correated measures o empathy and sympathy and hepng behavor have
taken over as objects o study n pace o the mora personaty, thought,
and behavor o deveopng ndvduas. Researchers seem to have ost
touch wth the vta ssues that once mpeed them to study mora
deveopment. Such maase s a sgna that researchers ought to be
ocusng on somethng besdes the desgn o the next emprca study, or
endng o oca crtcsms o the ast one. lt s tme to rethnk the entre
ed and the drectons n whch research mght be pursued. l successu,
our arguments may get the process started, we do not pretend to know
where the new drectons w ead.
- 42 -
But a survey o past experence shoud aert us to a serous hazard,
to be avoded n the uture. ve must avod once agan beng captured by
our preerred mora phosophy. No one mora concepton can be aowed
to ence n the mora doman, or te bnders around our vson o mora
deveopment. No matter how attractve or poweru our phosophca
arguments mght be, we must acknowedge and seek to understand how
peope arrve at opposed mora conceptons. Ths crtque has ocused on
Kants egacy because t currenty domnates the study o mora
deveopment. Eudamonsm has the advantage o beng ar more
ncusve than Kantansm. But the same hazards coud be posed by a
research program nspred by eudamonsm, or Buddhsm, or onucansm.
One syndrome o mora orthodoxy that we shoud know how to
guard aganst s the search or a hghest, most adequate stage o
deveopment that just happens to embody our own concepton. lt s not
just the study o mora deveopment that has aen prey to ths error:
Phosophcocentrsm s rampant n conceptons o advanced or
postorma stages o epstemoogca thnkng, regous ath, everyday
probem sovng, and so on. vhy ths happens shoud not be mysterous.
There s aways egocentrsm at ones hghest stage o deveopment. There
s aways the temptaton to assume that ones own phosophca poston s
a product o more advanced reasonng than the postons one rejects
(ampbe 8 Bckhard, +,8). At east knowng about egocentrsm gves us
some chance o guardng aganst ths error.
A broader perspectve on mora deveopment reveas both arduous
chaenges and unsuspected opportuntes. A successu research program
w have to account or the deveopment o a o the wde varety o
mora vews that are actuay ound somewhere, but wthout apsng nto
envronmenta determnsm or mora reatvsm. lt w have to account
not ony or eudamonsm and Kantansm and onucansm, but or mora
tradtons and practces radcay derent rom any o these. To consder a
possbty as yet unmentoned, t w have to meet Harres (+,8()
chaenge to account or the deveopment o morates based on honor,
ke the +,th century Brtsh code o the perect genteman or the +th
century Japanese mtary code o bushdo. lt w have to dea wth honor
morates that are usuay regarded as nobe, ke that o yrano de
Bergerac, as we as honor morates that are normay consdered
depraved, ke those o Naos and nner cty youth gangs (or more on
ths ssue, see hrstopher, +,,).
An adequate research program n mora deveopment, then, w
have to study the deveopment o vaues and o the se. The scope o ts
nqury w have to be broadened to ncude the u range o mora
probems, o mora personaty types, and o mature mora conceptons.
Eudamonsm oers some gudance n ths quest. lt chaenges the
narrowness o exstng conceptons o mora deveopment. lt s consstent
wth our schematc understandng o the way vaues unod, and o the roe
o reectve abstracton n the course o deveopment. lt oers some
hypotheses about the nterna consstency o derent sets o mora
- 43 -
vaues and ther compatbty wth human ourshng. But nether
eudamonsm, nor any other mora phosophy, can set tse up as the soe
arbter o what counts as a mora concepton, or o what eve or knd o
mora deveopment s most advanced.
RRR Reee e eee errr reee ennn nccc ceee esss s
Arstote. (+,(+). Ncomachean ethcs. ln R. NcKeon (Ed.), The basc works o Arstote (pp.
,;-+++). New York: Random House. (Orgnay pubshed c. B)
Baer, K. (+,8). The mora pont o vew. lthaca: orne Unversty Press.
Batson, . D. (+,8;). Prosoca motvaton: ls t ever truy atrustc' ln l. Berkowtz (Ed.),
Advances n expermenta soca psychoogy (Vo. o, pp. -+). New York:
Academc Press.
Beah, R. N., Nadsen, R., Suvan, v. N., Swder, A., 8 Tpton, S. N. (+,8). Habts o the
heart: lndvduasm and commtment n Amercan e. New York: Harper 8 Row.
Bckhard, N. H. (+,,). Scaodng and se-scaodng: entra aspects o deveopment. ln
l. T. vnegar 8 J. Vasner (Eds.), hdrens deveopment wthn soca context, vo.
: Research and methodoogy (pp. -). Hsdae, NJ: Erbaum.
Bckhard, N. H., 8 ampbe, R. l. (+,,). Topooges o earnng and deveopment. New
ldeas n Psychoogy.
Bas, A. (+,,o). How shoud psychoogsts dene moraty' or, the negatve sde eects o
phosophys nuence on psychoogy. ln T. E. vren (Ed.), The mora doman: Essays
n the ongong dscusson between phosophy and the soca scences (pp. 8-;o).
ambrdge, NA: NlT Press.
Brabeck, N. (+,8). Nora judgment: Theory and research on derences between maes
and emaes. Deveopmenta Revew, , ;(-,+.
Branden, N. (+,,). The psychoogy o se-esteem. los Angees: Nash.
Branden, N. (+,,(). The sx pars o se-esteem. New York: Bantam.
Breggn, P. (+,8o). The psychoogy o reedom. Buao, NY: Prometheus.
Bronenbrenner, U. (+,;o). Two words o chdhood. New York: Russe Sage loundaton.
Brown, l. N., 8 Tappan, N. B. (+,,+). ommentary [on Puka]. Human Deveopment, (, 8+-
8;.
ampbe, R. l. (+,,). Epstemoogca probems or neo-Pagetans. ln A. Demetrou, A.
Ekdes, 8 N. Patsdou, The archtecture and dynamcs o deveopng mnd:
Experenta structurasm as a rame or unyng cogntve deveopmenta
theores. Nonographs o the Socety or Research n hd Deveopment, 8 (-,
ser. no. (), +8-+,+.
ampbe, R. l., 8 Bckhard, N. H. (+,8). Knowng eves and deveopmenta stages. Base:
S. Karger.
ampbe, R. l., 8 Bckhard, N. H. (+,,). Types o constrants on deveopment: An
nteractvst perspectve. Deveopmenta Revew, +, ++-8.
ampbe, R. l., 8 Rche, D. N. (+,8). Probems n the theory o deveopmenta sequences:
Prerequstes and precursors. Human Deveopment, , +-+;.
hrstopher, J. . (+,,). ounsengs nescapabe mora vsons. Journa o ounseng and
Deveopment, ;, +;-.
hrstopher, J. ., 8 Bckhard, N. H. (+,,o). Otto Kernbergs object reatons theory: A
crtca examnaton. Unpubshed manuscrpt, Department o Psychoogy, lehgh
Unversty, Bethehem, PA.
oby, A., Kohberg, l., Gbbs, J., 8 leberman, N. (+,8). A ongtudna study o mora
deveopment. Nonographs o the Socety or Research n hd Deveopment, (8
(+-, Ser. No. oo).
ua, A. S. (+,8,). The concept o n onucan mora theory. ln R. E. Anson (Ed.),
Understandng the hnese mnd: The phosophca roots (pp. o,-). Hong
Kong: Oxord Unversty Press.
- 44 -
Damon, v. (+,;;). The soca word o the chd. San lrancsco: Jossey-Bass.
Den Uy, D. J. (+,,+). The vrtue o prudence. New York: Peter lang.
Den Uy, D. J., 8 Rasmussen, D. B. (+,;8). Nozck on the Randan argument. The Personast,
,, +8(-o.
Den Uy, D. J., 8 Rasmussen, D. B. (+,8(a). le, teeoogy, and eudamona n the ethcs o
Ayn Rand. ln D. J. Den Uy 8 D. B. Rasmussen (Eds.), The phosophc thought o
Ayn Rand (pp. -8o). Urbana: Unversty o lnos Press.
Den Uy, D. J., 8 Rasmussen, D. B. (+,8(b). aptasm. ln D. J. Den Uy 8 D. B. Rasmussen
(Eds.), The phosophc thought o Ayn Rand (pp. +-+8). Urbana: Unversty o
lnos Press.
Den Uy, D. J., 8 Rasmussen, D. B. (+,,). Rghts as meta-normatve prncpes. ln T. R.
Nachan 8 D. B. Rasmussen (Eds.), lbertaransm or the +st century. Totowa, NJ:
Rowman and ltteed.
Den, D. S.-l. (+,8). A hnese perspectve on Kohbergs theory o mora deveopment.
Deveopmenta Revew, , +-(+.
Esenberg, N., Ner, P. A., She, R., NcNaey, S., 8 Shea, . (+,,+). Prosoca deveopment n
adoescence: A ongtudna study. Deveopmenta Psychoogy, ;, 8(,-8;.
Esenberg-Berg, N. (+,;,). Deveopment o chdrens prosoca mora judgment.
Deveopmenta Psychoogy, +, +8-+;.
Erkson, E. (+,o). hdhood and socety. New York: Norton.
lanagan, O. (+,,+).Varetes o mora personaty: Ethcs and psychoogca reasm.
ambrdge, NA: Harvard Unversty Press.
lrankena, v. (+,;). Ethcs (nd ed.). Engewood s, NJ: Prentce-Ha.
Gabennesch, H. (+,,oa). The percepton o soca conventonaty by chdren and aduts.
hd Deveopment, +, o(;-o,.
Gabennesch, H. (+,,ob). Recognzng conventonaty: Repy to Shweder and Hewg et a.
hd Deveopment, +, o;,-o8(.
Gardner, H. (+,,). reatng mnds: An anatomy o creatvty seen through the ves o
lreud, Ensten, Pcasso, Stravnsky, Eot, Graham, and Gandh. New York: Basc
Books.
Gewrth, A. (+,;8). Reason and moraty. hcago: Unversty o hcago Press.
Ggan, . (+,8). ln a derent voce: Psychoogca theory and womens deveopment.
ambrdge: Harvard Unversty Press.
Ggan, ., 8 Attanucc, J. (+,88). Two mora orentatons. ln . Ggan, J. V. vard, J. N.
Tayor, 8 B. Bardge (Eds.), Nappng the mora doman: A contrbuton o womens
thnkng to psychoogca theory and educaton (pp. ;-8). ambrdge, NA:
Harvard Unversty Press.
Harre, R. (+,8(). Persona beng. ambrdge, NA: Harvard Unversty Press.
Habermas, J. (+,;,). ommuncaton and the evouton o socety. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hayek, l. A. (+,(8). lndvduasm and economc order. hcago: Unversty o hcago Press.
Hayek, l. A. (+,;). law, egsaton, and berty, Vo. : The mrage o soca justce. hcago:
Unversty o hcago Press.
Hewg, . ., Tsak, N. S., 8 Ture, E. (+,,o). hdrens soca reasonng n context: Repy to
Gabennesch. hd Deveopment, +, o8-o;8.
Homan, N. l. (+,;o). Nora deveopment. ln P. H. Nussen (Ed.), armchaes manua o
chd deveopment (rd ed., pp. +-o). New York: vey.
Huebner, A., 8 Garrod, A. (+,,+). Nora reasonng n a Karmc word. Human Deveopment,
(, (+-.
lbsen, H. (+,8). An enemy o the peope. ln lour great pays by lbsen. New York: Bantam.
(Orgnay pubshed +88)
Johnston, D. K. (+,88). Adoescents soutons to demmas n abes: Two mora
orentatonstwo probem sovng strateges. ln . Ggan, J. V. vard, J. N. Tayor,
8 B. Bardge (Eds.), Nappng
- 45 -
the mora doman: A contrbuton o womens thnkng to psychoogca theory and
educaton (pp. (,-;+). ambrdge, NA: Harvard Unversty Press.
Kant, l. (+,o). lectures on ethcs. london: Nethuen. (Orgnay devered +;8o-+;8+)
Kant, l. (+,). rtque o pure reason (N. Kemp Smth, Trans.). New York: St. Nartns.
(Orgnay pubshed +;8+)
Kant, l. (+,8). loundatons o the metaphyscs o moras (l. v. Beck, Trans.). lndanapos:
Bobbs-Nerr. (Orgnay pubshed +;8)
Kant, l. (+,,+). The metaphyscs o moras. (N. Gregor, Trans.). ambrdge: ambrdge
Unversty Press. (Orgnay pubshed +;,;)
Kaumann, v. (+,;). Beyond gut and justce: lrom decdophoba to autonomy. New York:
Deta.
Ke, l. . (+,,o). onstrants on constrants: Surveyng the epgenetc andscape. ogntve
Scence, +(, +-+8.
Kesey, K. (+,(). Sometmes a great noton. New York: Vkng.
Kohberg, l. (+,,). Stage and sequence: the cogntve deveopmenta approach to
socazaton. ln D. A. Gosn (Ed.), Handbook o socazaton theory and research
(pp. (;-(8o). hcago: Rand NcNay.
Kohberg, l. (+,;+). lrom s to ought: How to commt the naturastc aacy and get away
wth t n the study o mora deveopment. ln T. Nsche (Ed.), ogntve
deveopment and epstemoogy. New York: Academc Press.
Kohberg, l. (+,8+). Justce as reversbty: The cam to mora adequacy o a hghest stage
o mora judgment. ln l. Kohberg, Essays on mora deveopment, vo. +: The
phosophy o mora deveopment (pp. +,o-). San lrancsco: Harper 8 Row.
Kohberg, l., Boyd, D. R., 8 levne, . (+,,o). The return o stage : lts prncpe and mora
pont o vew. ln T. E. vren (Ed.), The mora doman: Essays n the ongong
dscusson between phosophy and the soca scences (pp. ++-+8+). ambrdge,
NA: NlT Press.
Kohberg, l., levne, ., 8 Hewer, A. (+,8). Nora stages: A current ormuaton and a
response to crtcs. Base: Karger.
Kohberg, l., 8 Power, . (+,8+). Nora deveopment, regous thnkng, and the queston o a
seventh stage. ln l. Kohberg, Essays on mora deveopment, vo. +: The phosophy
o mora deveopment (pp. ++-;). San lrancsco: Harper 8 Row.
lebert, R. N. (+,;,). Nora deveopment: A theoretca and emprca anayss. ln G. J.
vhtehurst 8 B. J. Zmmerman (Eds.), The unctons o anguage and cognton (pp.
,-(). New York: Academc Press.
locke, D. (+,8). Dong what comes moray: The reaton between behavour and stages o
mora reasonng. Human Deveopment, , ++-.
lomasky, l. E. (+,8;). Persons, rghts, and the mora communty. New York: Oxord
Unversty Press.
lyons, N. P. (+,8). Two perspectves: On se, reatonshps, and moraty. Harvard
Educatona Revew, , +-+(.
Naclntyre, A. (+,8+). Ater vrtue: A study n mora theory. Notre Dame, lN: Unversty o
Notre Dame Press.
Nasow, A. (+,8). Toward a psychoogy o beng (nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand
Renhod.
Nses, l. von. (+,). Socasm: An economc and socoogca anayss. london: Jonathan
ape. (Orgnay pubshed +,)
Nses, l. von. (+,). Human acton (rd ed.). hcago: Regnery. (Orgnay pubshed +,(,)
Noshman, D. (+,,). The constructon o mora ratonaty. Human Deveopment, 8, -
8+.
Nunro, D. J. (+,,). The concept o man n eary hna. Stanord, A: Stanord Unversty
Press.
Nurphy, J. N., 8 Ggan, . (+,8o). Nora deveopment n ate adoescence and aduthood:
A crtque and reconstructon o Kohbergs theory. Human Deveopment, , ;;-
+o(.
Nussen, P., 8 Esenberg-Berg, N. (+,;;) Roots o carng, sharng, and hepng: The
deveopment o prosoca behavor n chdren. San lrancsco: v. H. lreeman.
Netzsche, l. (+,8). Twght o the dos and the Antchrst (R. J. Hongdae, Trans.).
Batmore: Pengun. (Orgnay pubshed +88,)
- 46 -
Norton, D. l. (+,;). Persona destnes: A phosophy o ethca ndvduasm. Prnceton:
Prnceton Unversty Press.
Nozck, R. (+,;(). Anarchy, state, and utopa. New York: Basc Books.
Nucc, l. P., 8 Ture, E. (+,;8). Soca nteractons and the deveopment o soca concepts n
chdren. hd Deveopment, (,, (oo-(o;.
Nunner-vnker, G. (+,8(). Two morates' A crtca dscusson o an ethc o care and
responsbty versus an ethc o rghts and justce. ln v. N. Kurtnes 8 J. l. Gewrtz
(Eds.), Noraty, mora behavor, and mora deveopment (pp. (8-+). New York:
vey.
Nussbaum, N. . (+,8). The ragty o goodness: luck and ethcs n Greek tragedy and
phosophy. ambrdge: ambrdge Unversty Press.
Nussbaum, N. . (+,,oa). lntroducton: lorm and content, phosophy and terature. ln N.
. Nussbaum (Ed.), loves knowedge: Essays on phosophy and terature (pp. -
). Oxord: Oxord Unversty Press.
Nussbaum, N. . (+,,ob). Steerorths arm: love and the mora pont o vew. ln N. .
Nussbaum (Ed.), loves knowedge: Essays on phosophy and terature (pp. -
). Oxord: Oxord Unversty Press.
Peko, l. (+,8). The omnous paraes: The end o reedom n Amerca. New York: Sten
and Day.
Petrovch, O. (+,8). [Revew o Kohbergs Essays n mora deveopment, vo. +.] Brtsh
Journa o Psychoogy, ;, +-+.
Potts, D. (+,,). Justce s not reversbty. Unpubshed manuscrpt, Department o
Psychoogy, Unversty o lnos hcago.
Puka, B. (+,,o). The majesty and mystery o Kohbergs stage . ln T. E. vren (Ed.), The
mora doman: Essays n the ongong dscusson between phosophy and the soca
scences (pp. +8-). ambrdge, NA: NlT Press.
Puka, B. (+,,+). lnterpretve experments: Probng the care-justce debate n mora
deveopment. Human Deveopment, (, +-8o.
Radke-Yarrow, N., Zahn-vaxer, ., 8 hapman, N. (+,8). hdrens prosoca dspostons
and behavor. ln E. N. Hetherngton (Ed.), Handbook o chd psychoogy, vo. (:
Socazaton, personaty, and soca deveopment (pp. (,-(). New York: vey.
Rand, A. (+,(). The vrtue o seshness. New York: New Amercan lbrary.
Rand, A. (+,;o). ausaty versus duty. The Objectvst, ,(;), +-.
Rasmussen, D. B. (+,8). Essentasm, vaues, and rghts: The Objectvst case or the ree
socety. ln T. R. Nachan (Ed.), The bertaran reader (pp. ;-). Totowa, NJ:
Rowman and ltteed.
Rasmussen, D. B. (+,,). Potca egtmacy and dscourse ethcs. lnternatona
Phosophca Ouartery, , +;-(.
Rasmussen, D. B., 8 Den Uy, D. J. (+,,+). lberty and nature: An Arstotean deense o
bera order. laSae, ll: Open ourt.
Raws, J. (+,;+). A theory o justce. ambrdge: Harvard Unversty Press.
Rest, J. R. (+,;,). Deveopment n judgng mora ssues. Nnneapos: Unversty o
Nnnesota Press.
Rest, J. R. (+,8). Noraty. ln J. H. lave 8 E. N. Narkman (Eds.), Handbook o chd
psychoogy, vo. : ogntve deveopment (pp. -,). New York: vey.
Robnson, D. N. (+,,+). Nght the se be a substance ater a' Theory and Psychoogy, +, ;-
o.
Scheng, T. . (+,;8). Ncromotves and macrobehavor. New York: Norton.
Schoeck, H. (+,;o). Envy: A theory o soca behavor. New York: Harcourt Brace and vord.
Seman, R. l. (+,8o). The growth o nterpersona understandng. San Dego: Academc
Press.
Sharabany, R., 8 Bar-Ta, D. (+,8). Theores o the deveopment o atrusm: Revew,
comparson and ntegraton. lnternatona Journa o Behavora Deveopment, ,
(,-8o.
Shweder, R. A. (+,,o). ln deense o mora reasm: Repy to Gabennesch. hd
Deveopment, +, oo-o;.
Shweder, R. A., Nahapatra, N., 8 Ner, J. G. (+,8;). uture and mora deveopment. ln J.
Kagan 8 S. lamb (Eds.), The emergence o moraty n young chdren (pp. +-8).
hcago: Unversty o hcago Press.
- 47 -
Shweder, R. A., Ture, E., 8 Nuch, N. (+,8+). The mora ntutons o the chd. ln J. H. lave 8
l. Ross (Eds.), Soca cogntve deveopment: lronters and possbe utures (pp.
88-o). london: ambrdge Unversty Press.
Smetana, J. G., Ken, N., 8 Ture, E. (+,,+). hdrens reasonng about nterpersona and
mora concts. hd Deveopment, , ,-((.
Smth, A. (+,8+). An nqury nto the nature and causes o the weath o natons.
lndanapos: lberty Press (Orgnay pubshed +;;)
Sowe, T. (+,8o). Knowedge and decsons. New York: Basc Books.
Sowe, T. (+,8;). A conct o vsons. New York: Norrow.
Sprng, J. (+,8o). Educatng the worker-ctzen. New York: longmans.
Suvan, v. N. (+,8). Reconstructng pubc phosophy. Berkeey, A: Unversty o
aorna Press.
Tayor, . (+,;;). vhat s human agency' ln T. Nsche (Ed.), The se (pp. +o-+). Oxord:
Backwe.
Tayor, . (+,8). Phosophy and the human scences: Phosophca papers Vo. . New York:
ambrdge Unversty Press.
Tayor, . (+,8,). Sources o the se. ambrdge, NA: Harvard Unversty Press.
Tsak, N. S., 8 Ture, E. (+,8(). hdrens conceptons o mora and prudenta rues. hd
Deveopment, , +oo-+o,.
Ture, E. (+,8a). The deveopment o soca knowedge: Noraty and conventon.
ambrdge: ambrdge Unversty Press.
Ture, E. (+,8b). Domans and categores n soca-cogntve deveopment. ln v. l. Overton
(Ed.), The reatonshp between soca and cogntve deveopment (pp. -8,).
Hsdae, NJ: Erbaum.
Ture, E., 8 Davdson, P. (+,8). Heterogenety, nconsstency and asynchrony n the
deveopment o cogntve structures. ln l. levn (Ed.), Stage and structure (pp.
+o-+(). Norwood, NJ: Abex.
Ture, E., Hdebrandt, ., 8 vanryb, . (+,,+). Judgng soca ssues. Nonographs o the
Socety or Research n hd Deveopment, (, ser. no. ().
Ture, E., Ken, N., 8 Hewg, . . (+,8;). Noraty: lts structure, unctons, and vagares. ln
J. Kagan 8 S. lamb (Eds.), The emergence o moraty n young chdren (pp. +-
(). hcago: Unversty o hcago Press.
Vasudev, J., 8 Humme, R. . (+,8;). Nora stage sequence and prncped reasonng n an
lndan sampe. Human Deveopment, o, +o-++8.
Veatch, H. B. (+,). Ratona man: A modern nterpretaton o Arstotean ethcs.
Boomngton: lndana Unversty Press.
Veatch, H. B. (+,;+). lor an ontoogy o moras. Evanston, lnos: Northwestern Unversty
Press.
Veatch, H. B. (+,;). Payng heed to Gewrths prncpe o categorca consstency. Ethcs, 8,
;8-8;.
Veatch, H. B. (+,;,). [Revew o Gewrths Reason and moraty.] Ethcs, 8,, (o+-(+(.
Veatch, H. B. (+,8o). ls Kant the gray emnence o contemporary mora theory' Ethcs, ,o,
+8-8.
Veatch, H. B. (+,8). Human rghts: lact or ancy' Baton Rouge, lA: lSU Press.
vaey, A. (+,8). The anaects o onucus. New York: Vntage.
vaach, N. A., 8 vaach, l. (+,8). Psychoogys sancton or seshness: The error o
egosm n theory and therapy. San lrancsco: lreeman.
vaterman, A. S. (+,8+). lndvduasm and nterdependence. Amercan Psychoogst, , ;-
;;.
vheeer, J. (+,8(). Rand and Arstote: A comparson o Objectvst and Arstotean ethcs.
ln D. J. Den Uy 8 D. B. Rasmussen (Eds.), The phosophc thought o Ayn Rand
(pp. 8+-+o+). Urbana: Unversty o lnos Press.