A major criticism of Lawrence Kohlberg's theory on moral reasoning is that his model assumes that our behavior is influenced first by moral reasoning and then by our emotional reasoning. I find this very hard to believe because I think that when making decisions, the moral aspect is secondary to the emotional aspect. An example of where this is evident is with Sara Jane Olson. Sara was a former member of a terrorist organization in the 1970s. She had planned to bomb 2 LAPD police cars because they previously had killed members of her organization. She was not caught until almost 30 years after planting the bombs and it is at this time when Kohlberg's theory begins to fall apart. If moral reasoning had been the most important factor in decision making, then people would not have stood up for her because of how nice she had been later on in her life. Morally, it should make no difference whether a person was caught right after trying to kill 2 police officers and they had been in jail for almost 30 years or if the person didn't get caught until much later. In this case, however, because people became emotionally attached to her, they let their emotions guide their decisions instead of morals.
Interesting post! I had never heard of this woman or the situation before, but it is a good example for morals versus emotions. I however think that the two go hand-in-hand when determining our influence. For example, when thinking about something I know is wrong, I have a feeling of guilt based on the idea of doing something morally incorrect. My moral reasoning and emotional reasoning influence each other to guide my behaviors.