View Full Version : stages of moral development
stages of moral development, and the internet forum
after seeing a few threads bump up agaist the issue without actually
discussing it, im curious what people's opinions are on the stages of
moral development, compassion, game theory, and how they relate to
internet discussions.
In a nutshell, kohlberg took a look at freud and erikson's arguably flawed stages of development,
and attempted to lay the moral decision making process in a way that didnt depend on
voices in your head, or sexual attraction to your parents. The theory goes that one's decision making process is a result of how far you've developed morally:
(i've lost my good cog-sci books, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development is a
good primer)
Levels of Moral Development:
Level 1: preconventional morality
Stage 1: Individual obeys rules in order to avoid punishment.
Stage 2: Individual conforms to society's rules in order to receive rewards.
Level 2: conventional morality
Stage 3: Individual behaves morally in order to gain approval from other people.
Stage 4: Conformity to authority to avoid censure and guilt.
Level 3: postconventional morality
Stage 5: Individual is concerned with individual rights and democratically decided laws.
Stage 6: Individual is entirely guided by his or her own conscience.
They basically lay out why we view "good" or "bad" things the way we do. In the early
stages of development (pre-conventional), our views of right and wrong are
based on punishment. good actions are ones that get rewarded, bad ones are
ones that get punished. They're ego based (how does this action affect me
specifically)
In the "conventional" stages, right and wrong are based on our social
interactions, and approval or disapproval from other people. (living to the
expectations of parents or society). Not doing things purely because its
illegal would fall in here.
in the later stages, we start doing things because of universal ethical
principals. We follow laws because they are right/just. Compassion starts
entering the picture at this stage. We do things based on mutual respect.
This last stage (6) is where we hold other's needs and opionions on the same
tier as our own. The ego no longer kicks in and let us blindly think that
our thinking must be the correct one. (there's an acceptance that one's
moral view must be flexible, and accept new input)
Anyway, watching forum discussions takes on a facinating light when you see
the arguments that are made. The liberal, conservative, libertarian,
christian, atheistic views that are presented are all the products of each
person's moral development and view of the world. How much weight we give
our own opinions, or how much we're willing to concider other's viewpoints
is theoretically grounded in how we've progressed up (or down) this scale.
How we view the plight of others, when to apply game theory, when to be
altruistic.
anyway- curious what other viewpoints there are on internet/forum
discussions/politics with this type of thing in mind. It seems that a lot
of flaming threads get tangled up when not approached at the same level.
the ultimate ethical stance is honesty
this has a lot to do with our concept of what compassion is
not being truthful in order to not hurt some one's feelings is not ultimately compassionate
the truth is the truth
there is no higher value than the truth
real compassion requires honesty
because even though 'reality may be upsetting' only the truth allows you to be free
to agree with your friend irl that she has a good man when you know he has hit on you for example and is having an affair with a mutual friend is not compassion
to support delusion / illusion / fantasy is not true kindness
the truth eventually comes out
people become irrational over internet postings i realized this very quickly
i have observed people sending nasty pms nasty emails gossiping about people on IM AIM
this is unhealthy imho
either say it up front or don't say it
and on the internet it is just words on a page to place too much importance on it is irrational
it is a website a bunch of websites of which there are millions if not billions
it has no life or death power over anyone
if you think it does you need to get a life or see a psych or both
bigshotprof
09-23-2008, 02:02 AM
I will elaborate later, because I am about to go puke my guts out. But for now, it is difficult to build a first stage of development without establishing a base point or foundational stage prior to the inferential stage of being able to strategize the cause effect relationship of obeying to avoid punishment. I know that sounds weird because the cause effect inference is so obvious to us, but in most developmental and cog psych models inferential patterns of cause effect are already established in some cases pre-language and by the age of 3 or 4 at the latest. How does Kohlberg describe the stage prior to stage one of MD?
I will elaborate later, because I am about to go puke my guts out. But for now, it is difficult to build a first stage of development without establishing a base point or foundational stage prior to the inferential stage of being able to strategize the cause effect relationship of obeying to avoid punishment. I know that sounds weird because the cause effect inference is so obvious to us, but in most developmental and cog psych models inferential patterns of cause effect are already established in some cases pre-language and by the age of 3 or 4 at the latest. How does Kohlberg describe the stage prior to stage one of MD?
yea- kohlberg wasnt trying so much to describe stages of emotional development as he was moral reasoning. My 8 mo old daughter hasn't quite put together the fact that waving around a toy and hitting herself in the head is causing pain, let alone that you shouldn't hit mommy or daddy for fear of punishment. There is *no* moral reasoning to speak of until you start to grasp that some things are right and some things are wrong. how you then make the decision of which is which is what kohlberg was attempting to model. if i remember, (and it's been more then a decade since i've dusted some of this stuff off) you couldn't even reach stage 1 until your emotional/linguistic/etc development had reached a point. (his views are not nessisarily incompatible with ppl like erikson- you could have a fully developed intellect and emotional stage, but still not get past the first few stages of morality. (see: our current political representatives <kof>))
Damn- now i have to go pull some texts from the garage :)
guytheninja
09-23-2008, 06:57 AM
Level 3: postconventional morality
Stage 5: Individual is concerned with individual rights and democratically decided laws.
Stage 6: Individual is entirely guided by his or her own conscience.
in the later stages, we start doing things because of universal ethical
principals. We follow laws because they are right/just. Compassion starts
entering the picture at this stage. We do things based on mutual respect.
This last stage (6) is where we hold other's needs and opionions on the same
tier as our own. The ego no longer kicks in and let us blindly think that
our thinking must be the correct one. (there's an acceptance that one's
moral view must be flexible, and accept new input)
I don't agree with your sixth point. Your sixth point seems too relativistic. It appears to me that Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is based on objective morality. On the wikipedia page...
"Kohlberg's theory understands values as a critical component of the right. Whatever the right is, for Kohlberg, it must be universally valid across societies ... there can be no relativism. Moreover, morals are not natural features of the world; they are prescriptive. Nevertheless, moral judgments can be evaluated in logical terms of truth and falsity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Anyway, watching forum discussions takes on a facinating light when you see
the arguments that are made. The liberal, conservative, libertarian,
christian, atheistic views that are presented are all the products of each
person's moral development and view of the world.
Worldview is the key. I'm not a psychology major, by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know that, according to Christianity, morality is seen as being grounded in God Himself. Obviously a worldview, like atheism, would not hold this view of morality.
The question, that is most interesting to me is --- What is the nature of morality? (I actually studied this argument in high school, long ago).
The Argument from Morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
(modus tolens type argument)
P1: If there is no God, then morality is not Objective.
P2: Morality is Objective.
C: There is a God.
Dr. Craig will explain this further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0eGuqD1Dt8
I don't agree with your sixth point. Your sixth point seems too relativistic. It appears to me that Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is based on objective morality. On the wikipedia page...
"Kohlberg's theory understands values as a critical component of the right. Whatever the right is, for Kohlberg, it must be universally valid across societies ... there can be no relativism. Moreover, morals are not natural features of the world; they are prescriptive. Nevertheless, moral judgments can be evaluated in logical terms of truth and falsity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Worldview is the key. I'm not a psychology major, by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know that, according to Christianity, morality is seen as being grounded in God Himself. Obviously a worldview, like atheism, would not hold this view of morality.
The question, that is most interesting to me is --- What is the nature of morality? (I actually studied this argument in high school, long ago).
The Argument from Morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
(modus tolens type argument)
P1: If there is no God, then morality is not Objective.
P2: Morality is Objective.
C: There is a God.
Dr. Craig will explain this further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0eGuqD1Dt8
i do agree with his sixth point
it is congruent with advanced buddhist philosophy
but i do see your point in the use of the word morality as morality is usually connected with religious doctrine
however if you replace moral with ethical then it holds universally true
in buddhism there is no god but all life is sacred
in buddhism there is a conscious practice to attain the highest level of ethical behavior as the buddhist understands cause and effect as the governing dynamic of 'reality'
the principles transcend the precepts (precepts are akin the ten commandments = don't do this)
but the point of following the precepts is not to avoid punishment but to avoid suffering based on the 'theory' that by causing disturbance in the ALL THAT IS that those impulses cannot be prevented from boomeranging back on you
this highly focused concern then inevitability moves to include all living beings
at which point you have arrived at being influenced / motivated only by principle
guytheninja
09-23-2008, 05:30 PM
[COLOR="Plum"]
in buddhism there is a conscious practice to attain the highest level of ethical behavior as the buddhist understands cause and effect as the governing dynamic of 'reality'
Is Buddhism able to explain where this "governing dynamic of reality" came from? Is it simply an attribute of an eternal universe, which cannot be directly detected by the five senses?
I don't agree with your sixth point. Your sixth point seems too relativistic. It appears to me that Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning is based on objective morality.
<clip>
Worldview is the key. I'm not a psychology major, by any stretch of the imagination. But I do know that, according to Christianity, morality is seen as being grounded in God Himself. Obviously a worldview, like atheism, would not hold this view of morality.
The question, that is most interesting to me is --- What is the nature of morality?
You had to bring god into it, didn't you ;) I think that's where the use of the stages as a tool really shines tho. Regardless of one's worldview/belief in a higher being, the observable stages share the same properties. As a Catholic, my reward or punishment may be the wrath or love of God. My peers may be my parish. When reaching the later stages, tho (which supposedly only happens much later in life- think 60+) the evolution from a morality based on fear and reward, or based on social norms and acceptance, eventually takes on that personal aspect. An athiest may say it is the culmination of learned observations of the world around him, the regligious man may say the spirit of God has blessed the wisdom, but the moral compass still comes from within in either case. it's by *definition* relativistic, but still measureable
Is Buddhism able to explain where this "governing dynamic of reality" came from? Is it simply an attribute of an eternal universe, which cannot be directly detected by the five senses?
they can but i'm not sure i can without getting incredibly esoteric
do we accept that in the world of physics that 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' ?
if so then the only thing buddhism 'adds' is that thoughts also operate under this law
buddhism is all about the mind
it is not a religion in the sense that you accept buddha as your savior it is a practice by which you follow his instructions to attain buddha mind
where as in christianity it would be blasphemy to think you could become christ in buddhism that is exactly the point
to attain the same mindset buddha achieved
you achieve buddha mind by roughly the same method as a dancer becomes a prima ballerina or a violinist becomes a virtuoso
it is phenomenally difficult to discipline the mind but according to buddha it can be done
it requires constant practice
but the unique benefit is once you attain that absolute perspective it is permanent unlike anything else in life which is transient
it requires going into your own unconscious and reordering the subtle beliefs that are not actually true that you have accumulated along the way in a roughly parallel relationship the the development stages laid out in the opening post
your ally in this is your subconscious
the subconscious is neutral it does not perceive good or bad the ego supplies the 'this is favorable' 'this is not'
for me when i find myself suffering i can't pray to anyone to help me i have to look to myself nor can i blame anyone or anything outside myself
The enlightenment (Bodhi) of the Buddha Gautama was simultaneously his liberation from suffering (dukkha) and his insight into the nature of the universe – particularly the nature of the lives of ‘sentient beings’ (principally humans and animals). What the Buddha awakened to (Bodhi means "to awaken") was the truth of dependent origination.
This is the understanding that any phenomenon ‘exists’ only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in an incredibly complex web of cause and effect covering time past, time present and time future. This concept of a web is symbolized by Indra's net, a multidimensional spider's web on which lies an infinite amount of dew drops or jewels, and in these are reflected the reflections of all the other drops of dew ad infinitum.
Stated in another way, everything depends on everything else. For example, a human being's existence in any given moment is dependent on the condition of everything else in the world (and indeed the universe) at that moment but, conversely, the condition of everything in the world in that moment depends in an equally significant way on the character and condition of that human being. Everything in the universe is interconnected through the web of cause and effect so that the whole and the parts are mutually interdependent. The character and condition of entities at any given time are intimately connected with the character and condition of all other entities that superficially may appear to be unconnected or unrelated.
Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real independent identity (anatta) so do not truly ‘exist’, though to ordinary minds this appears to be the case. All phenomena are therefore fundamentally insubstantial and ‘empty’ (sunya).
Wise human beings, who ‘see things as they are’ (yatha-bhuta-ñana-dassana), renounce attachment and clinging, transform the energy of desire into awareness and understanding, and eventually transcend the conditioned realm of form becoming Buddhas or Arhats.
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da)
so to tie that in with relevance to this topic
a buddhist clings to the principles of the dharma (teachings) and as best as able puts them into practice
because they accept that upholding the highest principles in their own thought and actions is the only way to attain freedom from suffering
there is no outside mystical intervention
you may control a mad elephant
you may shut the mouth of the bear and the tiger
ride the lion and play with the cobra
by alchemy you may earn your livlihood
you may wander through the universe incognito
make vassals of the gods ~ be ever youthful
you may walk on water and live in fire
but control of the mind is better and more difficult
thayumanavar
tokenuser
09-23-2008, 08:09 PM
it is not a religion in the sense that you accept buddha as your savior it is a practice by which you follow his instructions to attain buddha mindThat is pretty much why things are referred to as "western religions" and "eastern philosophies". All religion is a philosphy, but not all philsophy is a religion.