Kohlberg's theory of gender development

• Cognitive theory of gender development

  Kohlberg's theory
• Kohlberg's theory


  • Consists of 3 stages
  • Stage 1: Gender labelling (ages 2-3)
  • Stage 2: Gender stability (ages 4-6)
  • Stage 3: Gender constancy (around age 6)
• Gender labelling


  Children can label themselves and others as boy or girl, based on cues like hairstyle or clothing
• Gender stability


  Children recognise that gender is stable, that boys grow into men and girls grow into women, but they don't yet understand that gender is an ingrained trait that doesn't change
• Gender constancy


  Children understand that gender is an ingrained, stable trait that doesn't change over time or situations
• According to Kohlberg, only when a child realises their gender is not going to change over time and situations do they start to learn gender-appropriate behaviour
• Research does not support Kohlberg's claims that children do not begin to acquire information about gender-appropriate behaviour until they achieve gender constancy
• Martin and Little (1990) found children under 4 showed strong gender stereotypes about what boys and girls were permitted to do, despite not showing signs of gender stability or constancy
• Bems' study showed 3-year-olds could correctly identify the gender of a toddler without clothes, suggesting they had acquired gender knowledge before Kohlberg proposed
• Girls tend to exhibit gender constancy before boys


  This can be explained by social learning theory - boys identify more with powerful male role models, while girls are less likely to identify with their role models who have less power
• Kohlberg's theory is incomplete as it does not account for the role of social learning theory principles in gender development
• Normative Ethics


  Key Points
• Normative Ethical Theories


  • Kant - Duty, Categorical Imperative, 3 Formulas
  • Utilitarianism, Principle of Utility + Consequentialist, Act, Rule
  • Natural Law Theory - based on idea of telos, synderesis and precepts, doctrine of double effect
  • Situation Ethics - agape and 6 propositions, 4 working principles, esp relativism, Christian basis for SE
• Duty and Good Will

  Good Will: the only thing that is good without qualification is a good will. Only the will is within our control and so only the will can be unconditionally good and can exercise pure practical reason. Duty makes the good will good. Duty is a special motive done only for its own sake. Practical reason gives the will two types of imperatives: categorical, hypothetical
• Hume argues morality is founded on feelings of sympathy


  Weakness - our emotions can be very bad basis for morality e.g. Paul Bloom (moral psychologist) argues feelings of empathy is triggered only for those who are like us – studies e.g. shocking opposite football fans
• First Formula: Universal Law


  Formula of Universalizability: act according to that maxim whereby it can be a universal law. E.g. Suicide, lying promise, utilising talents
• Alasdair MacIntyre points out you can use the universalizability principle to justify practically anything


  Weakness: E.g. If you create the maxim "I may break my promises only when. . ." that gap can be filled with a description that applies to my circumstances and very few others
• Problem of Universalising trivial actions

  Weakness: e.g. tying my left shoe before my right
• First Formula: Universal Law


  • It aims to treat everyone fairly and justly and so corrects the utilitarian assumption that the minority can suffer so long as the majority are happy
• Second Formula


  Act according to that maxim whereby you treat another as an end and never as a means. We cant use people e.g. slavery
• Kant says we should treat others as ends and not means because they are rational agents

  Weakness: Where does this live senile and children and animals (cf. Peter Singer)? Cf. Suprarational aliens justified to use us?
• Response to Kant's Second Formula

  Potentially rational
• Second Formula


  • Command us to respect human life. Humans cannot be enslaved or exploited. This is the basis of the Declaration of Human Rights
• Third Formula: Kingdom of Ends


  Act according to that maxim whereby one acts as a legislative member of a merely possible Kingdom of Ends. No one decides the moral law, not even God, they are a priori truths discovered by reasoning e.g. like a triangle has 3 sides
• Kant does not tell us what to do in individual cases where two or more moral duties conflict


  Objection: E.g. stealing a drug to help a loved one to live?
• Response to Kant's problem of moral dilemmas

  Problem of moral dilemmas affects all normative ethical theories
• Kant's theory


  • It is based on reasoning and makes clear that morality is about doing one's duty and not just following feelings or inclinations. This means that we cannot assume that what is good for us is morally good and so good for everyone else. This is Kant's equivalent of the Golden Rule of Christian ethics
• Principle of Utility


  Maximise pleasure and minimise pain
• Consequentialist Principle


  An action is right or wrong depending on its consequences
• Principle of Utility

  • Simple = apply principle of utility cf. Kantian ethics which has many formula
  • Commonsensical = we really do think of goodness in terms of alleviating suffering
  • Example the girl running from Nazis, gangsters
• Focusing on consequences


  Potential to justify any action e.g. TORTURE to save lives
• Difficulty in predicting consequences

  E.g. Baby Hitler, euthanasia
• Bentham/AU


  Hedonistic = defines good as pleasure. We measure pleasure using the hedonic calculus (units hedons). Certainty, extent, purity, fecundity, duration, intensity
• Bentham's Utilitarianism


  • Strength: scientific = based on calculation, no special preference for race, gender, sexuality
  • Weakness: can't measure pleasure
  • Weakness: difficult to define pleasure i.e. one person's pain is another person's pleasure
  • Weakness: impractical – no rest objection
  • Weakness: doesn't distinguish between higher and lower-order pleasure cf. Mill's RU
• Nozick's Utility Monster Objection

  • Objection: There is a monster that is able to convert resources into utility at a more efficient rate than human beings. This would allow it to consume a group of people because its happiness outweighs the majority's pain.
  • Response: A utilitarian may respond by saying there is no such thing as a utility monster. The more resources we have, the less impact it has. This is called the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.
  • Counter: However, it could be argued that there are those who are less efficient at generating utility. Very disabled and old people require a lot of resources to generate a small amount of happiness. Therefore utilitarianism seems to suggest that resources should not be spent on such people.
• Rule Utilitarianism

  Set of rules based on utilitarian principles. Universalizability, Greatest Happiness Principle
• Rule Utilitarianism


  • Strength = Distinction between higher and lower order pleasure
  • Weakness = Strong Rule (no exceptions) = becomes deontological, unsatisfactory because we sometimes want to break rules
  • Weakness = Weak Rule (exceptions) = becomes like Act Utilitarianism = no `point having rule if can be broken
• Utilitarianism

  • Simple: only one principle to apply, to maximise pleasure and minimise suffering. (Principle of Utility)
  • Commonsensical, as we really think morality is about promoting benevolence and alleviating suffering rather than formal rules as Kant envisaged e.g. 'do whatever you can universalise'.
  • Scientific, making quantitative measurements and applying the principles impartially gives no special treatment to ourselves or to anyone else because of race, gender, religion.
• Utilitarianism


  • Objection: There is potential to justify any act. There are many bad things that we can do in the name of maximizing general happiness e.g. deceit, torture, slavery. As long as the larger populace benefits, these actions might be justified by the utilitarian.
  • Objection: No rest objection. According to utilitarianism, one should always do that act that promises to promote the most utility. But there is usually an infinite set of possible acts to choose from, and even if I can be excused from considering all of them, I can be fairly sure that there is often a preferable act that I could be doing. E.g. when I am about to go to the cinema with a friend, I should ask myself if helping the homeless in my community would promote more utility.
  • Objection: Problem of incommensurability: Formula greatest happiness for greatest number uses two superlatives, which variable do we rank first?
  • Objection: It is difficult to predict the consequences. Utilitarianism seems to require a superhuman ability to look into the future and survey all the possible consequences of an action. We normally don't know the long-term consequences of an action because life is too complex and the consequences go into the indefinite future. E.g. Baby Hitler.
  • Objection against AU: There is difficulty in defining pleasure
  • Objection against RU: If a strong rule follower, it becomes deontological and can lead to irrational decisions, obeying rules even when disobeying might produce more happiness (e.g. lying to save someone's life). If a weak rule utilitarian, you can end up no different from an Act Utilitarian.
  • Objection against PU: Some people cannot make preferences known (e.g. those in permanent vegetative state, foetus)
• Rational

  In classical economic theory, economic agents are able to consider the outcome of their choices and recognise the net benefits of each one