Because you also commented on it. You said it reminded you of a quote so I thought you were supporting the OP. (Maybe you should have just said "Why are you quoting me? I was not supporting the OP." instead of saying that.)

You did need to clarify, Jay. You never said either.

Yes, it is. Note that I didn't actually say that the morality of most Christians is 1st level. I said that Christian morality is 1st level. It is "do this because god says so". The bible leaves no room for rational consideration, it sets down rules. Now, as I noted, a lot more of them take the form of suggestions than in Judaism, and the set of rules are mostly focused on morality rather than safety, but the point stands.

Christian morality says not to murder because god said not to murder. That's 1st level. 5th level would be "do not murder because humans have a right to life" (or similar).

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."

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.

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.