| Kasz216 said: 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. 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). 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?" |
First section: If you had bothered to pay attention to my argument, you'd see that I was referring to the FOLLOWING of the rules set down in the bible, not the rules themselves. The stages we are talking about have to do with WHY people come to the moral conclusions they do. If your reason for following the rules set in the bible is "it's god's word", then that is stage one, because it is based on a higher authority giving you the rules. Your only reason is "I was told to" (which is still a reason). And I didn't refer to stage 3 as the golden rule, I referred to the golden rule as arising in stage 3 - that is, at stage 3, one would expect to be able to formulate the golden rule. It doesn't invalidate its use at higher stages.
Second section: No, there is a reason at stage one. But what sets it apart is that the reason is "because I was told to". "It's god's word" or "god says so" are equivalent reasons. And "Because it is unclean" is basically another way of saying "it's immoral", and is thus equally a stage one reason. Let me give you a situation, and you tell me what stage you think it is. A man is talking to his son, and his son says that he wants to punch his friend. The father says "Don't punch him, that's immoral", and thus, the son doesn't punch him. What stage of reasoning is the son using?
Third section: Yes, I'd consider Jesus himself to have been stage 6, too. But if someone follows Jesus' teachings with the reason for doing things being "because Jesus said so", that's stage 1. That's obeyance, not actual moral reasoning. It's not the bible that is stage 1, it's following the bible (because it's the bible, not because you agree with the reasoning) that is stage 1. Jesus never says "Don't do this because god says so" or "don't do this or you'll go to hell". But if you're following his instructions because he told you to, or because to do otherwise would be to reject Jesus (and thus be punished), then you're using stage 1 reasoning. And you'll notice that I consistently refer to "christian morals", not "biblical morals". It's a key distinction - "Biblical morals" involve reasons. "Christian morals" involves doing things for Christ. I actually learned quite a bit from biblical morals (which isn't to say that I follow them, necessarily, or that I follow them because of the bible)- note that, here, I refer mostly to the new testament, which provides a lot more detail than the old testament as to real reasons for things.
Last bit: If Kohlberg really considers 6th level to be that rare, then I'm just going to have to disagree with him on that point. Stage 6 involves a broader level of morality than simple human rights. My morality is rooted in a set of principles (I actually use the term axioms, because it's a logic-based morality), where those principles are very much "universal", at least from the perspective of earth (having no knowledge of any life outside of earth makes it difficult to be more certain). My "modified golden rule" is a key conclusion of one of the axioms - the axiom of consistency. What is the axiom of consistency? It says that each person's individual moral decisions should be consistent with those of others. So when you decide what you are going to "do unto others", you must consider it from their perspective, not just your own. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a social contract, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" is consideration of others.
