Kohlberg’s feminist colleague Carol Gilligan has providednthe best refutation of his and Erikson’s schemes: it’s justnlike a man, she argues, to make a hero of Gandhi, an abstractnuniversalist who mistreated his wife. Mothers know better,nor at least they used to, and women in general never make itnto the moral stratosphere. They are stuck down in the mucknof everyday loyalties and commitments. Ethics, as practicednby mothers, could never be a growth industry, because theirnmorality is neither an ethical system rooted in logic nor anskill that can be taught. Moral development for women —nand for men lucky enough to possess some of theirnsanity — is a growth in love. Their moral judgment containsnmore prudence than logic and arrives ultimately at the slownand painstaking distillation of experience that goes by thenname of wisdom.nThere is a difference between more or less exact sciencesn— mathematics, logic, chemistry — where the proper applicationnof methods and rules is supposed to producenreplicable results, and those branches of learning that studynlife. Here real science is possible, but it has to take accountnof organic change, and as Henri Bergson pointed out innCreative Evolution, organic life is characterized by growthnand change—by what he called “duration” rather thannmere time — and that even with all the information, it wouldnnot be possible to predict the state of earth’s flora and faunana century from now.nBergson’s argument is even more applicable to humannlife, wbere free will and intelligence encourage men to playnat being lords of creation. Feed all the “data” on great poetryninto a computer, and you will not get a good, much less angreat, poem, and even a master poet at the height of hisnpowers can fail miserably, and he will publish his monstrosity,nunless he happens to, be also a great critic.nAristotle put the finger on the essential distinction, whennhe proved that mathematical precision was as out ofnplace in ethical matters (and by ethics he meant tonencompass nearly everything having to do with humannbehavior, including poetry and rhetoric) as rhetorical eloquencenwas in logical demonstration, and it was Aristotlenwho firmly situated prudence or wisdom (phronesis) rathernthan rationality as the central technique of moral judgment.n14/CHRONlCLESnIn Memory of Rita Hayworthnby Richard MoorenAs the Hollywood sex queen almightynpictured in LIFE in your black lace nightie,nyou made us slaver, snigger, chortle.nOf course, we knew that you were mortal —nbut Alzheimer’s disease!nJeez.nnnThere can be no science of wisdom, because a sciencenrequires a set of rules and techniques, which, if properlynmanipulated, will yield the solution. But ethical dilemmasnrarely offer a universal right answer. Is it ever right to take anhuman life? That, of course, depends on the situation, but itnalso depends upon the people involved. It may be generallynright to shoot a thief running away with the family silvern(although there are those who would dispute this), but whatnif the thief turns out to be my father or brother or a friendnwho has done me important favors?nOr consider this familiar case: a young man goes to worknfor a President upon whom the fate of the free woridndepends. Should he run a clean campaign and risk turningnthe country over to George McGovern, or should he cinchnthe election by cheating? Later, after he has been caught,nthe young man will be asked by the Watergate Committee ifnhe had ever thought about ethics. Yes, Jeb Magrudernexplained, he had studied ethics with William SloanenCoffin. In the teaching of Mr. Coffin — it might just as wellnhave been Michael Walzer or Robert Nozick — lawfulnessntakes at best second place, compared with obedience to anhigher law, loyalty to principle and party. The same moralnreasoning used to justify sit-ins at nuclear power plants alsonapplies to break-ins at the Watergate.nWhich takes precedence, loyalty to President and principlenor the obligation to obey the law, obligations to family ornloyalty to the state? One ancient philosopher posed anninteresting dilemma: suppose a young man discovers that hisnfather has found a way of stealing money from the statentreasury. Should he turn him in? The answer is no, becausenthe state needs obedient sons more than it needs money.nOne may argue with Hecaton’s priorities, but mostnpeople would not think much of a man who testified againstnhis brother in a Senate hearing on a presidential appointment.nThese complications of family connection are obviousnenough, but in real life the details often add up to morenthan the general rules. The sublime rationalists celebratednby Rawls and Kohlberg will always turn out to be monsters,nif they get the chance. Robespierre and Sherman were bothnhonest men and humanitarians, and Pol Pot had a dreamneven more sublime than Abraham Lincoln or MartinnLuther King. <^n