Abstract
This article revolves around the “Why be moral?” question, a fundamental ethical question raised by Kohlberg and Ryncarz (1990) in the field of moral development. The study is in three parts. In the first part, Introduction, I refer to this fundamental ethical question and the questions related to it. In the second part, I compare Kohlberg’s response to that question and the questions related to it with those given, implicitly or explicitly, by other relevant figures of developmental psychology. Contrary to other developmental psychologists, I argue that, for several reasons, Kohlberg’s response to the why be moral question is more complete and deeper than that presented by the relevant developmental figures analyzed in this article. Despite this, I recognize that, as far as the other questions associated with the why be moral question are concerned, all those figures made important contributions to a better understanding of one’s moral functioning, and that some of them explored moral issues, which, to some extent, were overlooked by Kohlberg. In the third part, Final Words, I summarize the main ideas of the paper and enumerate several reasons why Kohlberg’s answer to the why be moral question is the most complete and deepest one among those presented so far in the field of moral development.
Highlights
The why be moral question has given rise to much theoretical debate and empirical research (e.g., Bergman, 2002, 2004; Blasi, 1999, 2004; Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2009)
Why be just in a universe that appears unjust? This question asks whether there is any support in reality or nature for acting according to universal moral principles...” (p. 192)
Principles that, as it were, would pass the reversibility test (e.g., “Would I advocate the same solution as that which I defend in a certain moral dilemma if I were in a different position in that dilemma?”), and the universalizability test (e.g., “Would I advocate the same solution as that which I defend in that moral dilemma if it occurred at a different time and place?”)
Summary
The why be moral question has given rise to much theoretical debate and empirical research (e.g., Bergman, 2002, 2004; Blasi, 1999, 2004; Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2009). With their idea of the unity between self and morality as an answer to the why be moral question, Colby and Damon (1992, 1995) brought to light the importance of non cognitive motivations for one to be moral, an aspect that Kohlberg’s theory overlooks.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
