Pendidikan Karakter dan Kedalaman Moral Perspektif Lichona dan Kohlberg
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57060/jers.v4i02.129Keywords:
Morality, Character Education, Moral TheoriesAbstract
This study aims to delve into the depth of moral concepts from the perspectives of Lichona and Kohlberg and their application in character education. Through a literature review and comparative analysis, this research compares and explores the moral theories developed by Lichona and Kohlberg, particularly in the context of character development and moral education in schools. Using a qualitative approach, the study identifies the key principles of both theories and considers how these principles can be integrated into effective character education curricula and practices. The findings indicate that, despite some differences in their theoretical aspects, both thinkers contribute significantly to the understanding and teaching of morality in education. The study suggests that a combined approach, drawing on the strengths of both theories, can provide a richer and more comprehensive framework fo rcharacter educationin schools.
Downloads
References
Belgasem-Hussain, A., & Hussaien, Y. (2020). Earnings management as an ethical issue in view of Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(2), 522-535. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-11-2019-0138
Dakin, E. (2014). Protection as care: moral reasoning and moral orientation among ethnically and socioeconomically diverse older women. Journal of Aging Studies, 28, 44-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2013.12.001
Dellaportas, S. (2006). Making a difference with a discrete course on accounting ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 391-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-0020-7
Hafizi, Z. (2023). The importance of moral education in the formation of children's character. Ijgie (International Journal of Graduate of Islamic Education), 4(2), 345-350. https://doi.org/10.37567/ijgie.v4i2.2527
Jørgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: duet or duel?. Journal of Moral Education, 35(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240600681710
Krebs, D., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: a critical evaluation of Kohlberg's model. Psychological Review, 112(3), 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.3.629
Kuswandi, I. (2020). Tahapan pengembangan moral: perspektif barat dan islam (telaah terhadap gagasan Thomas Lickona, Lawrence Kohlberg dan Al-Qur’an). Ar-Risalah Media Keislaman Pendidikan Dan Hukum Islam, 18(1), 158. https://doi.org/10.29062/arrisalah.v18i1.329
Lourenço, O. (2019). A plea for the study of the relation between the aretaic morality and the deontic and responsibility moralities. Psychologica, 62(2), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8606_62-2_7
Molina, A. (2015). Public administration, market values, & the public interest: a Kohlbergian perspective. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 426-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/073491491503900303
Moroney, S. (2006). Higher stages? some cautions for Christian integration with Kohlberg's theory. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34(4), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710603400406
Nemcov, L. (2018). Teaching business ethics. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381503.n1161
Setyabudi, M. (2020). Konsep dan matra konsepsi toleransi dalam pemikiran Rainer Forst. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 3(3), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.23887/jfi.v3i3.24895
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ulfa Nur Azizah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
JERS have CC-BY-SA have or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.