Engineering Ethics
This section builds upon Lawrence Kohlberg’s hypothesis of moral development. Kohlberg’s original framework was largely based on the ethical reasoning of privileged white men and boys. To create a more comprehensive framework, this hypothesis was later expanded to account for both male and female cognitive approaches to ethics.
Carol Gilligan, a pioneering psychological theorist born on November 28, 1936, in New York City, earned her doctorate in Social Psychology from Harvard University. Initially a research assistant for Lawrence Kohlberg, Gilligan eventually established her own independent research and critiqued portions of his foundational theories.
Gilligan’s Theory
Carol Gilligan argued that Kohlberg’s theories were fundamentally biased toward a male-centric reasoning process. Because Kohlberg primarily studied men and boys, his model failed to account for the unique social conditioning experienced by women. Gilligan proposed that female moral development centers heavily on caring and the preservation of human relationships, which directly influences how ethical decisions are made.
Consequently, she introduced an alternative framework. While her model retains the same three primary stages as Kohlberg’s, it redefines the milestones of moral development. In Gilligan’s approach, ethical growth is rooted in pro-social behaviors—such as altruism, helping, and caring—alongside traits like honesty, fairness, and respect.
Pre-customary Level
At this foundational stage (often referred to as the pre-conventional level), an individual’s focus is primarily on self-preservation and survival. While the mindset here is inherently self-centered, it serves as a necessary transition phase where the individual first begins to recognize the connection between themselves and others.
Customary Level
In this intermediate stage, the individual develops a strong sense of responsibility and demonstrates active care toward other people. Carol Gilligan observed that this level of moral reasoning is frequently seen in traditional maternal and spousal roles, where prioritizing the needs of others can sometimes lead to the neglect of oneself.
Post-customary Level
This is the advanced stage where the principle of universal care—balancing care for oneself with care for others—is fully realized and accepted. However, Gilligan noted that a portion of the population may never reach this level of ethical maturity.
According to Carol Gilligan’s theory, moral growth is driven by a transformation in one’s understanding of “self” rather than purely through abstract critical thinking. Kohlberg had previously claimed that women rarely reached his post-conventional level. Gilligan’s research countered this, explaining that advanced moral reasoning looks different for women because their ethical framework prioritizes maintaining complex relationships rather than simply applying rigid, overarching rules.
Levels of Thinking
Gilligan posits that advanced moral reasoning relies on two distinct psychological frameworks. Her theory outlines these two primary approaches: care-based morality (often observed in women) and equity-based, or justice-based, morality (often observed in men).
Care-based Morality
Care-based morality is rooted in empathy and connection. This approach relies on the following principles:
-
Strong emphasis is placed on interconnected relationships and universal care.
-
Acting equitably means focusing on the avoidance of violence and harm.
-
Individuals utilizing this framework are highly motivated to help others.
-
It is generally more common in girls, often stemming from early, deeply connected relationships with their mothers.
-
Because of these enduring social connections, there is less rigid focus on abstract issues of “fairness” and more focus on relational well-being.
Equity based Morality
Equity-based (or justice-based) morality is rooted in rules, logic, and autonomy. It relies on these principles:
-
The world is viewed as a collection of independent individuals who interact with one another.
-
Acting equitably means strictly avoiding inequality and enforcing fairness.
-
Individuals with this perspective are highly focused on protecting personal autonomy.
-
It is often more common among boys, which developmental psychologists attribute to their early need to differentiate themselves from their mothers.
-
This separation fosters a heightened concern for abstract concepts of equality and inequality.
Case of Gilligan’s Theory
To better understand the practical application of Gilligan’s hypothesis—especially useful when experienced engineers and professionals face complex ethical dilemmas—we can look at a classic fable.
Imagine a group of moles who offer shelter in their burrow to a porcupine. Unfortunately, the moles are constantly being pricked by the porcupine’s quills. What should they do?
Gilligan’s Post-regular Level
When presented with this dilemma, researchers found that ethical problem-solving varies significantly among individuals. Thinkers evaluate the problem through one of two lenses: justice-based (equity) or care-based.
-
In a Justice-based perspective: The dilemma is viewed strictly as a conflict between two competing groups where only one can hold the property rights to the burrow. Either the moles or the porcupine gets to stay. The solution is not a collaborative resolution, but a definitive choice—a winner and a loser.
-
In a Care-based perspective: The problem is viewed as a shared difficult situation facing both parties, rather than an adversarial battle. The goal is to find a creative workaround that eliminates the harm without severing the relationship. The moles and the porcupine might reach an agreement to expand the burrow or create physical boundaries, allowing both to live in peace without causing injury.
Researchers observed that the justice-based perspective is predominant among males, while the care-based perspective is predominant among females.
Accord and Controversy
In professional environments, rendering moral judgments can lead to conflict if decisions are not communicated properly and respectfully to all involved parties. Following an ethical judgment, a group typically enters one of two states:
Accord
This is a state of consensus where individuals agree with the moral reasoning behind a judgment. When a decision is effectively communicated and rooted in sound ethics, the involved parties are left feeling that true justice has been served, regardless of which specific group the final decision appears to favor.
Debate
This is a state of controversy or dispute where the individuals involved are unsatisfied with the verdict, often feeling the decision was driven by partiality or bias. This leaves people with a sense of frustration that justice was denied, which frequently sparks new conflicts and erodes trust.