Aielyn said:
I'm going to respond to the quoted part directly. "Murder" doesn't carry its own reason. The term distinguishes itself from "kill" by whether or not it's sanctioned. In other words, an alternate description would be "thou shalt not kill unless the killing is deemed acceptable to god". It does not provide a reason beyond "because god says so". A stage 5 or 6 reason not to murder would root itself in right to life, social stability, and collective agreement (not majority rule - that's different). And no, "because it's unclean" isn't a reason of any more significance than "because god says so", because the definition of "unclean" is "considered bad by god". There is no social justification, no basis in rights or law, just a commandment not to touch the skin of a dead pig along with what is effectively a punishment (it's still a punishment if it happens without intent). It's no different from saying "touching fire will burn you". That's not a reason to not touch fire, it's an action and a punishment. The reason to not touch fire is that it will do damage to your body, which is imparted upon you through the sensation of pain. I'm also not clear on why the effects of *eating* a pig is a "reason" for not touching the skin of a dead pig. You don't seem to comprehend what the stages are about. They're not about the nature of the reason, but how that reason is achieved. Getting the reason from a book is literally stage 1, even if stage 6 reasons are supplied, because it's morality by authority, rather than by proper reasoning. Let me give you an example of a higher stage of reasoning in connection with religion. In Judaism, there are many things that are not to be done - there are strong rules against them. However, Jews recognise special exceptions, the primary one being the protection of life. If a Jew is faced with the decision between eating pork and dying of starvation, eating pork is the moral thing to do. This principle is not actually stated in the torah, although the idea that life comes before other things is. The torah establishes the "human right" to life, and then Jews use that right as a basis for part of their morality. That is stage 5 reasoning. But the laws in the torah are stage 1 reasoning. |
You really haven't been reading this thread have you...
but no... I do understand Kohlbergs moral reasoning... I was tested on it more then enough.
You are showing your lack of understanding of it by just the mere fact that your trying to apply it to written philosphical beliefs in the first place.
It's like your saying "Our legal code is stage 1, because laws only tell you what laws are and don't give reasoning for why the exist."
One might as well conclude Teddy Bears are dead because "Teddy Bears don't breath, have brainwaves or vital signs."
Outside that... you don't even understand what Kohlberg's stages are... as shown by you erroniously refering to stage 3 as "The Golden Rule."
As for Stage 1... you don't need ANY reason for Stage 1. That is the pure narrowness of stage 1.
Because God said so... or Because it's unclean are beyond the scope of stage 1.
When given the bible... a person who reads "Do not eat pigs they are unclean" would say when faced with the dilema of not touching pigs (if he decides to not eat the pig....)
"I should not eat pigs. It's against the law." God, or being Unclean would never enter in to it in the first place.
Stuff like " I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." before then 10 commandments would be pointless. (You should do what I say because I freed you from slavery.) wouldn't be in there. It'd be pointless.
Though I suppose the biggest flaw in your argument though is that Kohlberg generally considered Jesus to be in the 6th stage of moral development. (Note Kohlberg's jewish).
Now what records of Jesus beliefs and moral code exist from which to draw this conclusion of Jesus?
Only the Bible. (You know... if you believe that jesus existed as a historical person. Whether you or I do is highly irrelevent though.)
So to claim the bible holds no justifications for why people should act... when Kohlberg is using the justifications given in the bible as for why Jesus was a 6th level person.... seems a bit off. Worth noting that while he would analyze Jesus, he wouldn't suggest the actual writings had any level of moral reasoning at all... be they 1, 3, 5 or 7. (7 is not a typo by the way... i'd rather not have to go into it if I don't have to.)
Well unless you don't think Kohlberg is a good judge of Kohlbergs work.
Also by the way "My modified Golden Rule?"
Trust me. You aren't a 6th level thinker. Kohlberg reserved that only for very specific and rare people... Gahndi or MLK you ain't.
