Critics of kohlberg's theory have asserted that reasoning about hypothetical moral problems in an advanced way is not the same as behaving morally. furthermore, critics have also argued that reasoning about hypothetical life-and-death situations does not tell us very much about the ways people reason in day-to-day problems. what has recent research studies addressing these concerns found?

Recent research studies adress this concerns in way that explains that eventhough you reason about hypothetical moral problems in an advanced way, this does not mean that you are behaving morally. This does not mean that you respect other people when you treat them everyday, it does not mean that you help someone that needs a hand and you do not expect something in change, it does not mean that you are a reliable person and that the others can trust you. Studies express that no matter what problems you want to anticipate to, no matter what reasoning about hypothetical life and death experiences you have, you can also be selfish, not reliable, not helpful, because this features can be in you or off you but it is your own choice.

you probably know the answer. stop asking stupid questions and making me waste my time. j.k. ; )   b.t.w. what are three ratios equivalent to 5 : 11? thx

d. the polar jet stream   lies between the polar easterlies and trade winds should be your answer