This work is intended to answer to the question, “justice can be incompatible with care as moral principles?” Carol Gilligan suggests in her Book(1982) that morality includes two moral orientation: the morality of justice as stressed by Freud, Piaget, and Kohlberg; an ethic of care and response which is more central to understanding female moral judgement and action than it is to the understanding of judgement and action in males. Gilligan has criticised that Kohlberg’s objective position was based on an inerrant neutrality which concealed power and falsified knowledge. Gilligan says that the standard justice reasoning dilemmas and issue scoring system will not reproduce the findings of invariant sequence and structured wholeness for female that Colby and Kohlberg have for males as reported in their longitudinal study. Kohlberg partially accept Gilligan’s differentiation of two orientations in moral judgement, he does not believe, that the growth of justice and the ethic of care represent two distinct tracks of moral stage (i.e., structural) development. At the postconventional stages there is typically an effort to integrate concerns of justice and care. The principle of persons as ends is common to both the ethic of care and the ethic of justice. Higgins reports the convergence of the justice and care orientations at Kohlbergian postconventional level. Related to a female kibbutz case Kohlberg sees that many moral situations or dilemmas do not pose a choice between one or the other orientation but, rather, call out a response which integrates both orientations. In her revised book she writes that she has not revised, but she says too that it has been astonishing for her to discover, in the time since this book was published, how her “experiences resonate with the experiences of other women and also in different ways with the experiences of men.” With this statement her intention against Kohlberg’s thesis is changed basically.