Concept of Going to Heaven...

[Kasz216]

Aielyn said:

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.

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.

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.

So in otherwords... you didn't even bother reading the full Wikipedia article on Kohlbergs stages.... if you did... you would of noticed this.

"Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

Kohlberg never observed ANYBODY to be in stage 6 consistantly.  Instead he only hypothisized that some of man's greatest civil rights leaders were stage 6.  Jesus, Gahndi, Martin Luther King...

Much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs... the "Top level" isn't a stage people reach permanently...but instead something someone may claw up to temporarily... outside extreme cases.

This bit betrays your ignorance of Kohlbergs system.  You aren't argueing Kohlbergs system.

What you are argueing is your own moral development belief which you've superimposed over Kohlbergs for credibility... twisting and distorting the meaning of his different stages to fit your own world view.   You see stage six as being much more vast... because you don't truley understand what his stage 6 means.

 

Also worth noting is that neither you nor Prof noticed another sentence in there... which I really didn't want to bring up... until Kohlberg's moral reasoning principles were understood... because like I've mentioned before.  I think Kohlberg work sucks... and this really tends to ratchet up the debate 1000% fold for stupid reasons... but to hell with it.   Lets go all in, shall we.

"Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning"

This is why I said "Generally" earlier.  Kohlberg thought Jesus was a stage 6, until later on in life, when he saw Jesus as one of two people who would qualify for Stage 7.  (Mohammed was the other.)

Stage 7 answering "What is moral" in the truist sense of the word... by becoming one with the "Nature of God."

Kohlberg saw Moral reasoning and Relgious Reasoning as different things altogether... even had a different six point scale for religous reasoning... one had to reach the top of both, and then move beyond merging the two.

Hence the ultimate folly of trying to use Kohlbergs stages for religion is that... Kohlberg has a totally different scale for it.  

 

Perhaps the 7th level will finally exorcise your opinions from the misapropriated husk of Kohlberg's work...

For Kohlberg... religion is needed for "Ultimate moral enlightenment..." and I really wanted to avoid people jumping in and trying to start the old stupid "Can atheists be moral" arguement based on a hypotehtical 7th stage that's beyond a hypothetical 6th stage.