Concept of Going to Heaven...

[Kasz216]

Aielyn said:

Kasz216 said:
No it's not.

1st level would be "Do not murder because it's a rule."

God would be irelevent in first level thinking.  This is one of those things where you generally need to crack open a textbook rather then go off of a one sentence wikipedia article.

1st level thinking doesn't even have the person involved as a member of society yet.  Hence why it's children only.

The bible has rules... (and explains why those rules exist...) sure.

So does every code of laws.  Kohlberg's system isn't about laws... but how people react to laws and why.

 

As for Christian Morality itself... I'd note that Punishments themselves are completely avoidable through Jesus Christ... so I don't even see where you get that it's 1st level from your flawed attempt to apply somethign to something it's not supposed to be applied too.

To have a way to avoid punishment due to outside factors is pure stage 5 reasoning.

Erm... "laws" are stage 4. And the system isn't about how people react to laws, it's how they formulate moral decisions. And if your moral decision is based on "god said so" (which is exactly the same as "it's a rule", just with a religious overtone), then you're still on stage 1 morality. Note that the levels of thinking aren't actually tied to ages or where a person is in society. One can be a fully grown adult who still uses stage 1 moral thought.

By the way, the bible does *not* explain why the rules exist. Just for the fun of it, I'll challenge you on it. Find somewhere in the bible where it explains why "thou shalt not murder" (note: if it says "kill", then it's poorly translated). Find somewhere in the bible where it explains why touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean.

But more importantly, if you're getting your morals from a book, you're still on stage 1, no matter what - if you're not actually engaging your reasoning skills, your critical thinking, then you're not even close to stage 5. Note that I'm using the rhetorical "you", not referring to you, Kasz.

And avoidance of punishment "through Jesus Christ" is actually a massive distortion of the concept put down in the bible. The idea is that accepting Jesus Christ will lead you to make moral choices, not that it will allow you to avoid punishment when making immoral choices. And most of THAT part of the bible is Stage 3, including the "golden rule" (which is even explicitly noted against Stage 3 in the wikipedia article about the stages).

"Thou shalt not murder" is stage 1. The "golden rule" is stage 3. Stage 5 is best characterised by a more "global golden rule", if you can think of it that way. Stage 6 is where, in my opinion, my "modified golden rule" comes into play. My "modified golden rule" says "do unto others as they would have you do unto them". Indeed, stage 6 specifically carries the idea that disobeyance of unjust laws is an obligation (whereas stage 4 would demand obeyance of unjust laws, and stage 5 would introduce the idea that sometimes it's OK to disobey unjust laws).

Having a way to avoid punishment isn't stage 5 thinking. It's actually not even stage 1 thinking. It's not a matter of moral development at all

First off... thou shall not murder?  You answered your own question there.  Why was murder used instead of kill originally?  Because murder specifically denotes why one should not murder by it's words being different from kill.

As for why touching the skin of dead pig is unclean...   The act would be to not touch the Pig.   That it's unclean is the reason given...

Also you know... there is more then that.

"And you may not eat the pig. It has split hooves but does not chew the cud, so it is ceremonially unclean for you. You may not eat the meat of these animals or even touch their carcasses."

So not only did they give you a reason there... but  a reason for the reason.

 

Meanwhile If all it was is "Accepting Jesus christ will allow you to act morally"... why did Jesus have to die?

Wouldn't it of made more sense for him to live on, keep preaching and keep doing miracles on earth?

As for Kohlber Seriously... track down an actual textbook on Kohlberg... or better yet if possible, his actual works.  You'll get it then.  Psychological theories tend to translate very poorly to wikipedia articles and 101 textbooks because well.

If you take a class on Freud for example, you realize everything you've been taught about him is wrong.  Base things like the Oedipus complex are completely misunderstood by the general public because it had to be reduced down to a couple sentences for general consumption.

 

For Kohlberg... in actuallity, stage 3 is about conformity... to show you were Wikipedia conflicts with itself here and gets more specific as it focuses on one aspect of Kohlberg... where the one sentence has less to sum up, and therefore is closer to the truth.  (Though still somewhat off.)

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.

Or:

Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.

 

What about this sounds like the Golden Rule for you.  Nothing.   It's not "Do on to others what others what you would want done on to you."

It's "Do on to others, what others expect of you."