One cannot simultaneously claim everyone in "a western democracy" is at 5th or 6th level of moral thought, and then claim that it's due to being rooted in Christian morality.

Christian morality is 1st level. It is straight obedience. I also can't help but notice that you claim that the same argument for Chinese being "at a lower level" applies to the Japanese... even though the Japanese have a democracy, and you claimed that 5th and 6th level thinking in the vast majority of people is "pretty much a requirement" for democracy.

In short, your logic doesn't make any sense.

Did you actually read the link on the problem? 

If so... do you really think that most people in western society aren't at atleast stage 5.... if you are.... I feel like you don't have much expierence dealing with people.

I don't care what you say.  I'm getting my cake.

No it isn't....

Please read something about Kohlberg's stages of morality.  

If you did, you'd realize that Kohlberg siad hardly any adults were every stuck in the 1st or 2nd stages.  Or Teenagers for that matter.    Stages 1 and two are considered the (Pre conventional Stage) that young children work there way through.

Most adults were in stage 3 or 4... which is considered the conventional stage.

Stage 5 was needed for Democracy.... since Stage 5 is basically a recognition and acceptence of the social contract.

and Stage 6 is largely theoretical and not enough people believe in it.   This is the post conventional phase.

As for the Japanese... they tend to have a higher percentage of people at "stage 4".  the "Law and Order" stage.

Also it's kind of my secondary point.   Kohlbergs work sucks.  He claims it as comprhensive and all consuming and applicable to all societies, when it's not really explicable to any, because it focuses soley on Justice for moral reasoning... and in general has a Pro Western bias that suggested the west was morally superior to the east. 

Have to get people to understand what Kohlberg's stages of moral development actually are first before I can point out where it fails.

Really either Jonahtan Haidt's, or base Piaget are better theories to use.

Except kasz this is the second time youre twisting my words.
i acknowledge that people exist eho never pass stage 2 or 3, and i pointed out the link to. Stage 1 and 2 with heacen and hell, and showed another link about how religious right always vote against what they consider evil and have a hard time understanding the concept of freedom and equality of civil union. Sure marriage

Sure marriage is sacred. This i understand. But marriage gets tax breaks and benefits like being able to see the otger in a hospital etc. Many religious right are against this despite it having nothing to do witg them.
i already said in my opening post thar is wasnt a perfect picture.but just something I'd noticed.

So u can stop with trying to skew it to something else.

I don't understand your point above.   Though I think you seem to misunderstand.  Which is that basically nobody hasn't passed the first two stages mentioned in Kohlbergs work.  Outside of like... Sociopaths and the mentally retarded.

Depedning on your theorist.  Some argue that the 3rd and 4th stages are blown past by adults as well.  Can't remember which group Kohlberg was in... and am starting to think that this was his view and that the "most people don't reach 5/6" was a later addition to his view though... been a while since I went back to my degree information... because well most of psychology annoys me.

Regardless the point is...

People according to Kohlberg get past the first two stages at like... 10 years old or so.  Any moral reasoning stunting your seeing is likely just a misreprsentation of what there points actually are.  Which is extermly common on a heated issue.

Your argument is clumsy because essnetially according to Kohlberg's work... EVERY position can be held no matter your level of moral reasoning.

It's perfectly reasonable to be at the 5th stage level and be against gay marraige.

The general argument made tends to be that Homosexuality is immoral, slippery slope yadda yadda... I'd rather not go into it because I don't believe it... however I do understand their arguement and their beliefs for it.  (Just disagree vehemetly with it.)

It's pure fifth level reasoning though.

While gay marriage being a sin may have helped shaped their views, it's far from their actual reasoning of why homosexuality shouldn't be allowed.

Maybe you're not very good at following the argument?

First post: "Take from this what you want. I take it that, not all christians, but a good number of them have been socially and morally stunted."

Your latest post: "I don't understand your point above.   Though I think you seem to misunderstand.  Which is that basically nobody hasn't passed the first two stages mentioned in Kohlbergs work.  Outside of like... Sociopaths and the mentally retarded."

I specifically said that I believe that christianity is too easily misguided and detrimental since it is a human system. Religion is great for humanity, it does many great things, but specifically Christianity is a bit too superficial and vague.

I am a believer in the concept that experience engenders understanding, not rules. And good behavior at any point, especially one that is fundamentally raised on the proposition of reward is something I completely disagree with.

But again, you are twisting my words. I never said that 5th level morality couldn't hold ideas founded in the first. Your understanding of my argument is based on your experiences with people. My family is extremely religious. I was raised by nearly 4 congregations, concurrently. One Catholic school and church on Sunday afternoon. A Christian youth church sunday mornings. And an alternating evangelist and large christian congregation saturday/friday nights. I have met thousands of Christians, and still talk to many because if there's one thing Christians like to do is be up in people's business. The most resounding and unified voice I've heard from these people regarding nearly all issues, is "you're going to go to hell if you do this". There is very little "this is what is morally right for the people" because that question engenders doubt. It's a question that asks more questions about beliefs and questions "god's will".

The only religious people who have ever seemed to be sage and wise to me were the very old lifetime christians. Late 50's and on. And those have nearly always told me that being good isn't about following commandments and praying and everything, it's about trying and wanting to be good and doing what you think is right despite the rules. This is the kind of understanding that only comes from a lifetime of experience with admitting being wrong. This is an attitude that I consider to be high level morality.

I believe the entire concept of religion betrays this, BUT is displaced by the positives it affords, like hope, drive, love, etc.

Oh and PS, don't stick with the one thought of "hurr christians never pass stage 2". It is a flexible scale, but I believe them to be on the lower end on average.

The problem is... your belief isn't particularly well suited to fact.  As i've been trying to tell you.

Make whatever arguement you want, however don't use Kohlberg for it.. because Kohlberg doesn't support it.

In the least.

Explain, because all the counter arguments have been your own interpretations of what I've been saying and not what I've been saying. Civil Unions is a higher stage of morality. The counterargument is rooted in reward/punishment. Even if you still think that I believe someone using stage 1 can't be a stage 5, it is still the proposition that christianity still assists in using stage 1 to solve problems.