Carol Gilligan’s critique that women tend to use care-based forms of moral reasoning while men use justice-based forms of moral reasoning has been widely supported by empirical data.
True
False
The correct answer and explanation is:
Correct Answer: False
Carol Gilligan proposed a theory that challenged Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development by suggesting that men and women may approach moral problems differently. She argued that women are more likely to use a care-based form of moral reasoning, focusing on relationships and responsibilities, whereas men are more likely to use justice-based reasoning, focusing on rules, rights, and fairness.
While Gilligan’s work was influential and sparked important discussions about gender and moral reasoning, her claims have not been consistently supported by empirical data. Numerous studies have attempted to test her theory, and the results have been mixed. Some studies found minor differences in moral reasoning between genders, but these differences were often small, inconsistent, or explained by factors other than gender, such as education, socialization, and cultural background.
Further, critics have pointed out that framing moral reasoning in strictly gendered terms risks reinforcing stereotypes. Research in psychology has increasingly emphasized the idea that both care-based and justice-based reasoning are present in individuals of all genders, and that context and life experience play significant roles in shaping moral judgment.
Another limitation of the empirical support for Gilligan’s theory is the difficulty of measuring moral reasoning in a way that is free from cultural or methodological bias. For example, the methods used to classify reasoning as “care-based” or “justice-based” can be subjective and may not fully capture the complexity of moral thought.
In summary, while Carol Gilligan’s critique introduced valuable perspectives and challenged male-centered models of moral development, the idea that women predominantly use care-based reasoning and men use justice-based reasoning is not widely or strongly supported by empirical data. This makes the statement false.