The central argument of Carol Gilligan’s critique of Kohlberg’s theory of…

Concept: Kohlberg's theory of moral development, built mainly from studies of boys, framed mature moral reasoning in terms of abstract justice and individual rights. Carol Gilligan argued this created a systematic gender bias: it treated a justice-orientation as the universal norm and devalued a different, equally valid moral voice grounded in relationships, responsibility, and care.

Application: In 'In a Different Voice', Gilligan's central claim is that Kohlberg's stages privilege a justice-based reasoning style more typical of boys' moral development, while overlooking an ethics-of-care orientation more commonly observed in girls' moral reasoning. She proposed care and responsibility as a separate, legitimate developmental pathway rather than a deficiency, framing her critique explicitly as a feminist re-reading of moral development theory.

Contrast — why the near-miss options differ:

• ‘Overestimation of children’s moral abilities’ is a measurement-validity concern about whether Kohlberg’s stages set too high a bar for children generally — a debate about calibration, not about whose moral voice the theory represents.

• ‘Use of experimental design in studying children’ is a research-methodology objection about how data was collected, not about a bias embedded in the theory’s underlying moral framework.

• ‘Educational implications... for school going children’ treats the critique as a downstream classroom application, but Gilligan’s argument was theoretical — about how moral development itself is framed and whose experience it privileges.

The central argument of Gilligan's critique is therefore her ethics-of-care, feminist re-framing of Kohlberg's justice-oriented model of moral development.