The Generalized And The Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Controversy And Moral Theory

Seyla Benhabib produces many examples of the marginalization of women’s voices in moral theory in her essay “The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Controversy and Moral Theory”. In this essay, I will first seek to define the moral theory that Benhabib takes issue with as the basis of her essay, and build off of that with reference to the marginalization of women’s voices in Kohlberg’s moral theory due to it’s male-centric nature. Benhabib’s essay focusses principally on ethics and moral theory, because her main argument is over Lawrence Kohlberg’s model of moral judgement. Benhabib states in her essay that moral theory is based firmly upon the notion of a “generalized other,” meaning that we assume a “general” identity for all people being judged. That all people have rights, and those rights are equitable to ourselves, and specifically focusses on what we have in common, versus the individuality of humanity. However, because of this basis, moral theory has trampled upon women’s ability to be fairly assessed at a moral level. This, Benhabib argues, is because women focus primarily on the notion of a “concrete other”. Women from a …show more content…
Benhabib writes; “We seek to comprehend the needs of the other, his or her motivations, what she searches for, and what s/he desires,”