While reviewing the basis of Lawrence Kohlberg's idea of reasoning processes, I found it pretty interesting how he scored his subjects. There was no "right" or "wrong" answer to his questions, instead he looked at how a person came to his or her final decision. This stuck out to me because there could have been any number of responses to a single question, pieced together from someone's ethical background, previous lived experiences, knowledge of societal acceptances, and personality. While thinking about these influences, I thought of a few questions that the book doesn't really answer. What types of cultures were involved in his experiment? We, as PSY 1001 students, know all about decision making and problem solving strategies by now, and could easily make the argument that how one person comes to his answer varies by what type of culture he or she hails from, through no fault of his own simply by how his culture raised him. Does that place him on a morally lower level than another person with the same answer, just a different method of how he achieved it? The other question was inferred from on page 396 about sex biased. Gilligan claims that women were destined to score lower because of their "caring" orientation rather than the male "justice" orientation. It just got me thinking about all of the possible answers people could come up with if they had an extreme personality, or if the question Kohlberg presented hit especially close to home with one individual, making them either more or less moral according to Kohlberg.
I also found this very interesting. You could easily have people from many different cultures answer a question in a million different ways and in each culture that answer could be moral and in a different culture immoral or vice versa. I also found it interesting how the book talked about the confound with verbal intelligence. I think it would be great to do more research into this and see how verbal intelligence and moral development do or do not relate.