I would have been thinking about social norms and categorical imperatives in Kohlberg's system -- or about the social value of self-sacrifice in Gilligan's. Instead I made a moral choice that reflects moral maturity: a level of caring that Gilligan would define as postconventional. Whether consciously or not, I was determined to preserve the dignity and promote the well-being of both my friends. I took myself out of the picture. I knew that I was dealing with sensitive emotional issues and bonds of friendship that could be severed with one wrong word. Whether or not Julie and John were having problems was none of my business. I did not pry; I did not ask John what his possible role in Julie's behavior was either.

Kohlberg would claim that I had internalized a set of agreed-upon social values and my actions reflected the norms that underwrite morality in our culture. I would have reasoned that Julie and John each had a right to the Truth and that I was put in...

In this situation, Gilligan's model more accurately reflects my decision to gently confront Julie rather than ignore John's request, ask Julie too bold of a question, or do anything else that might hurt Julie or John. I was not thinking about the value of their relationship, either. Knowing that not all relationships are meant to work out in the long run, I was not acting from a conventional moral position that valued relationship preservation over the happiness of my friends. Similarly, I felt that no matter what the outcome of the situation, I would be doing whatever I could to care for my friends. If it meant losing one or both of them, at least I would have been acting on the higher moral principles that transcend selfishness. Honoring Julie and John's value as human beings, I acted with postconventional morality.