In the article, Carol Gilligan highlights a couple of arguments that can justify the fact some of the researchers do not include female sample in their studies of justice reasoning. First, females are blamed for lower level of justice reasoning. Second, women create a potential error in care reasoning by creating a tendency to enter into another's perspective. And finally, research shows females have a problem understanding “morality” in general (Gilligan 1987). Yet, these findings are compared merely to men’s view on morality and development of justice. As the matter of fact, being different from men’s views doesn’t mean being wrong. Even though moral perspective of care is considered to be exclusively a female phenomenon and there is no ready vocabulary in moral theory to describe its terms, this doesn’t give the right to neglect such a framework for moral decision making from the research on moral judgement (Gilligan 1987).
Instead, women’s moral development has to be investigated, as, if taken into account, women’s perspective on morality may open doors and show new approaches to moral conflict resolutions. According to Piaget’s studies, women have greater tendency toward finding different ways to solve conflicts. Females are committed to compromise, cooperation and tolerance. In addition, women are less egocentric as in the conflict they care more about relationships other than their own terms. This is especially important due to the assumption that human survival, in the current century, may depend less on formal agreement peculiar to men than on human connection that is considered to be mostly women’s dominant characteristic of moral action (Gilligan 1987). Therefore, research methodology should include the guidelines where both men and women are investigated as this is the best approach to equality and accurate findings.
Works Cited
Gilligan, Carol. "Moral Orientation and Moral Development." N.p., 1987. Web. 19 July 2016.
