[W]e must not only state this general account but also apply it to the particular cases.
For among accounts concerning actions, though the general ones are common to
more cases, the specific ones are truer, since actions are about particular cases, and our
account must accord with these.

-- Aristotle ( 1985, p. 46 )

By 1970, Kohlberg's theory was the preeminent approach to the study of
moral development, especially with regard to adolescence and early adult-
hood. Since that time, research on adolescent morality has flourished and
diverse theoretical views have been proposed ( Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998;
Lapsley, 1996; Turiel, 1998). Many of the differences among these views in-
volve fundamental questions about the nature of morality. What do people
mean by morality? What do theorists mean by morality? What theoretical,
cultural, and/or individual differences might there be in conceiving the
moral domain?

What should moral development researchers investigate? Most people
would agree that violent behavior, and associated beliefs about when vio-
lence is or is not acceptable, constitute a reasonable focus for moral devel-
opment research. Likewise, most would agree that moral development
researchers should not focus their attention on adolescents' penmanship,
which is generally not regarded as a moral issue.

But what about studies of adolescent drug use, sexual behavior, friend-
ships, community activities, empathy, or character? Whether or not a given
study is viewed as relevant to moral development not only depends on what
is studied and what results emerge, but also on how the moral domain is con-
strued. Research on moral development always reflects the researcher's as-

-51-