Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 11:13:30 am

Title: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 11:13:30 am
as the textbook i have in my hands states it (human development, ninth edition - papalia, wendkos-olds, feldman)

Quote
Level 1: Preconventional morality.
People act under external controls.  They obey rules to avoid punishment or reap rewards, or act out of self-interest.  This level is typical of children ages 4 to 10.

Level 2: Conventional morality (or morality of conventional role conformity)
PEople have internalized the standards of authority figures.  They are concerned about geing "good," pleasing others, and maintaining the social order.  his level is typically reached after age 10; many people never move beyond it, even in adulthood.

Level 3: Postventional morality (or morality of autoomous moral principles)
People now recognize conflicts between moral standards and make their own judgements on the basis of principles of right, fairness, and justice.  People generally do not reach this level of moral reasoning until at least arly adolesence, or more commonly in young adulthood, if ever.

I postulate that most social conservatives are mired in Level 2 thinking, while most social liberals have attained level 3 reasoning.

Do you agree?

[edit]
or if not that much different - conservatives tend to stick to level III: stage 5 if they attain level 3, and liberals tend to use level III: stage 6 more often
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Bobboau on October 28, 2006, 11:34:52 am
the "principles of right, fairness, and justice." are different.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 11:42:53 am
in my expirience most conservatives i have spoken to are incapable of recognizing when to "morals" are in conflict with each other - thus there are not in level 3
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Blue Lion on October 28, 2006, 11:47:43 am
I wonder if they're capable of recognizing bait threads
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 11:48:37 am
I wonder if they're capable of recognizing bait threads

just because you assume i am trolling does not mean that i am - i am reading my pyschology textbook right now and i came across kohlberg's theory - which was described in detail - in my textbook in my studying for my test

if you do not wish to stay on subject, then please be my guest and leave this thread
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: achtung on October 28, 2006, 12:22:07 pm
You're taking what's in your psychology textbook and twisting it to apply to political groups.  Giving one the higher ground over the other when they are both obviously on level one.  :p
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 12:35:33 pm
You're taking what's in your psychology textbook and twisting it to apply to political groups. 

twisting it? it's a theory about moral reasoning - one of the biggest differences between the two dominate political groups in the united states is their moral reasoning - i don't see how you can classify it was "twisting"

Giving one the higher ground over the other when they are both obviously on level one.  :p

i have a feeling the "level" you're talking about isn't one of kohlberg's levels
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: KappaWing on October 28, 2006, 12:42:49 pm
I'll give this one 3 pages.  :snipe:
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Dark RevenantX on October 28, 2006, 01:14:19 pm
That's sad.  I'm on level 3.  No wonder nobody likes me!

My friends are mostly on level 1, with some on 2.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 01:17:58 pm
how old are you?
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Rictor on October 28, 2006, 01:53:58 pm
See, the whole concept of morality is mired down in superstition and belief in an above-human authority. The key here is that the authority, morality, is above the level of the individual. It doesn't have to be God it can be a secular concept of "society", it's identity, traditions and so on, which dictates morality.

For example honour. Why is it good to be honourable and bad to be dishonourable? If you accept the primacy of personal morality - that every person is free to determine his own code of right and wrong, than both are equal. As are many other things, indeed all moral questions. The whole attempt to poke and prod morality, to stand up to the boogeyman of "ancient moralism" and do cute little analysis studies - is first of all people inventing clever devices by which they prove to themselves they are better than the great unwashed masses, and secondly it is involving the intellect where it does not belong. The peasant's morality, ignorant and traditional, is a valid as anyone's. I think that what what I believe is right because I believe it. If I think gays are the scourge of the Earth, telling me with self-righteous pride that I'm stupid and wrong is attempting to impose a uniform moral standard, the very same thing the "free-spirits" cry foul about. If you say "tolerance is king" and then add "except for those who choose not to be tolerant", I don't see how that constitutes a valid arguement.

The above theory is just a way for people to feel good about themselves, "Wee, I'm a free spirit unlike those brutish old rednecks who are trying to impose fascist morality on my freedom". I say bull****. "Liberals", and the word is absurd for a number of reasons but I'm using it for the sake of expediency, are just as perfectly conformist as anyone else. So you say you listen to NPR, read philosophy and buy fair-trade coffee. Astounding. Just like fifty million others. The fact that you think that there are two sharply distinct, opposite cultures in America, the good "liberals" and evil "conservatives", one of which you take to be self-evidently superiror (naturally the group you consider yourself a part of), kind of puts the lie to your claim of being a totally un-conventional thinker, free from the prejudices of your surroundings.

In today's environment, an Amish is a more rebellious figure than your perfect free-spirited, enlightened, educated liberal. You assume that conformity means only conformity to traditional beliefs, so the more piercings you have and the more Sartre you read, the more free you are. But it cuts both ways. A loud, rude, un-enlightened, nationalist who beats his wife and hasn't read two books in his life is very un-conformist, given that the prevailing trend in Western society today is to mimic as perfectly as possible that educated, enlightened, tolerant, prosperous middle-class guy. His is more free in his morality and less of a conformist than your typical non-conformist.

When everyone is a rebel, the only true rebel is the un-rebel.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Rictor on October 28, 2006, 02:01:39 pm
This one is kind of funny

Quote
Level 3: Postventional morality (or morality of autoomous moral principles)
People now recognize conflicts between moral standards and make their own judgements on the basis of principles of right, fairness, and justice.

Or, to translate: People now reject the tastiness of pizza, and instead prefer to create their own dish made up of dough, cheese, sauce and pepperoni
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 02:03:41 pm
that was off topic, off based, factually incorrect and showed a total lack of understanding of the question at hand.

your self-aggrandizing angsty wannabie "deep-philosophical" lectures are a waste of time, please keep them out of my threads
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Unknown Target on October 28, 2006, 02:05:26 pm
You forgot something this time Kazan...

*gives Kazan his boat*

Sorry, I figured since u were out fishing, you should have your boat to keep above the "lesser human intelects" that  are so below you, your talents, and your absolutely perfect morals.

Cheers!
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 02:07:05 pm
if the trolls don't stop posting in this thread by then, i'll start contacting administrators
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Unknown Target on October 28, 2006, 02:09:08 pm
*makes motorboat sounds with lips*
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 28, 2006, 02:14:42 pm
I don't claim to know much about Kohlberg or psychology in general, but Stage 6 sounds like just a regurgitation of Kant's "thing-in-itself".
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 02:21:29 pm
really FP?

PS: UT keep begging for a monkeying and the admins will oblige you - you've been told not to troll my threads
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Unknown Target on October 28, 2006, 02:28:40 pm
You do the same to mine.

Anyway, I'm out. Have fun listening to people's opinions and then promptly ignoring them.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ghostavo on October 28, 2006, 02:35:01 pm
To be fair, although this sounds all very interesting, most modern psychology is just a bunch of self-righteous bullsh*t. In this I agree with Feynman.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 28, 2006, 04:06:11 pm
My biggest problem with psychology is that it seems like it's trying to fill in the blanks where neurological science hasn't caught up yet. There's so much we still don't understand about the way in which the physical brain functions, and we're trying to form all these theories about behavior without the nuts and bolts. I think that in the future, we'll see brain science render certain fields of psychology and philosophy obsolete. (And believe me, it hurts me to say that because epistemology is an amazing subject.)
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 04:40:56 pm
To be fair, although this sounds all very interesting, most modern psychology is just a bunch of self-righteous bullsh*t. In this I agree with Feynman.

tell that to the millions of people who need pyschological treatment and are succesfully treated each year - like my fiancee who is on antidepressants because she used to have clinical depression and engaged in cutting

yeah... the tom cruises of the world can take a hike
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 04:42:34 pm
My biggest problem with psychology is that it seems like it's trying to fill in the blanks where neurological science hasn't caught up yet.

psychology IS part of neurological science... where did you get the impression that they're seperate?

There's so much we still don't understand about the way in which the physical brain functions, and we're trying to form all these theories about behavior without the nuts and bolts.

you don't need to know the functioning of a black box to figure out what outputs you getgiven specific inputs after you perform enough prodding


Quote
I think that in the future, we'll see brain science render certain fields of psychology

psychology is brain science....
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ghostavo on October 28, 2006, 05:16:40 pm
To be fair, although this sounds all very interesting, most modern psychology is just a bunch of self-righteous bullsh*t. In this I agree with Feynman.

tell that to the millions of people who need pyschological treatment and are succesfully treated each year - like my fiancee who is on antidepressants because she used to have clinical depression and engaged in cutting

yeah... the tom cruises of the world can take a hike

Yes, I would tell them if I had the means to.

And to quote Feynman:

Quote
It's a great game to look at the past, at an unscientific era, look at something there, and say have we got the same thing now, and where is it? So I would like to amuse myself with this game. First, we take witch doctors. The witch doctor says he knows how to cure. There are spirits inside which are trying to get out. ... Put a snakeskin on and take quinine from the bark of a tree. The quinine works. He doesn't know he's got the wrong theory of what happens. If I'm in the tribe and I'm sick, I go to the witch doctor. He knows more about it than anyone else. But I keep trying to tell him he doesn't know what he's doing and that someday when people investigate the thing freely and get free of all his complicated ideas they'll learn much better ways of doing it. Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: aldo_14 on October 28, 2006, 05:55:39 pm
There's so much we still don't understand about the way in which the physical brain functions, and we're trying to form all these theories about behavior without the nuts and bolts.

you don't need to know the functioning of a black box to figure out what outputs you getgiven specific inputs after you perform enough prodding

And yet, strangely, that theorem of understanding hasn't worked too well for neural networks....
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 28, 2006, 06:12:18 pm
you don't need to know the functioning of a black box to figure out what outputs you getgiven specific inputs after you perform enough prodding
But you won't know why you get those results, and without the why, all you have is a set of correlations. And that's what current psychology seems to give us. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for psychology and don't at all consider it "pseudoscience", but it's not enough to be able to say that when "A" happens you'll get "B" as a result. We haven't yet been able to reduce the science of behavior to the most basic biological level-- the level that concretely describes, in physical terms, why certain results correspond to certain input. That's the distinction I'm talking about between behavioral science and neuroscience. Again, I would strongly disagree with someone who says that modern psychology is bull****-- I just think, from what I can see, that the science of behavioral patterns is a few steps ahead of the science of the physical brain. And I think that this century will see a convergence of those fields, with certain questions regarding the mind eventually becoming obsolete.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: WMCoolmon on October 28, 2006, 06:55:29 pm
I dunno about you guys, but my power level is well over 700. :lol:

Seriously, what do you get from saying that you're at a 'higher level of reasoning' than your ideological foes?
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: TrashMan on October 28, 2006, 07:00:13 pm
Psychiatrists are either for people who have some mental disorders (shizofrenia, etc..) or those who can't face their own problems...

Weakmined poeple...
In my country, a psychaitrist would starve to death due to lack of work. A avergae citizen here is far saner than one for US.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: achtung on October 28, 2006, 07:27:51 pm
I dunno about you guys, but my power level is well over 700. :lol:

Seriously, what do you get from saying that you're at a 'higher level of reasoning' than your ideological foes?

For Kazan, I think it's this little thing poking out of his pants.   :p
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 28, 2006, 07:41:34 pm
Psychiatrists are either for people who have some mental disorders (shizofrenia, etc..) or those who can't face their own problems...

Weakmined poeple...
Forgive me if I conclude from this statement that you've never experienced real depression, because I can assure you that there are times in many people's lives where the truly dependent aspect of being human becomes all too apparent. I strongly caution you against assuming that someone who can't face life alone is weak just because you've been fortunate enough not to need help.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 09:23:21 pm
 :mad2: trashman if we ever meet in real life, i'm going to stomp a mudhole in your ass for that statement - you just insulted my fiancee

half the people in this ****ing thread don't know **** about this science - and you're the worst of them - you just insulted my fiancee you ****ing asshole

weakminded she is not - medications are for CHEMICAL imbalances in the brain you farking moron - she has 100x the willpower that you have and 100x the intelligence, but she also has a MEDICAL CONDITION that you're too ****ing stupid and bigoted to understand

you ****ing disgust me

----------

the rest of you ragging on pyschology: you clearly have never taken a ****ing psychology course as you clearly don't know wtfh you're taking about - the studies in psychology hold up to the unmodified standards of scientific evidence.

bunch of uneducate twats weighing in on a subject they don't understand

---------

[edit]
and STOP CONFUSING PSYCHIATRY AND PYSCHOLOGY
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: achtung on October 28, 2006, 09:34:10 pm
the rest of you ragging on pyschology: you clearly have never taken a ****ing psychology course as you clearly don't know wtfh you're taking about - the studies in psychology hold up to the unmodified standards of scientific evidence.

bunch of uneducate twats weighing in on a subject they don't understand

I'm not ragging on Psychology, I'm just saying you're taking it and applying it to make a certain group appear better than another, when if fact, they are both the same.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 09:37:56 pm
I'm not ragging on Psychology, I'm just saying you're taking it and applying it to make a certain group appear better than another, when if fact, they are both the same.

no, you assume that i am - but i am not - i made an observation and a bunch of people instead of asking for clarification instead assumed i was trolling - and several just came to troll

[edit]
lol

Quote
[21:37] Nukebomb Overkill: most people dont understand stupidity
[21:38] Kazan: you don't know the history of stupidity!
[21:38] Kazan: i do!
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Aardwolf on October 28, 2006, 09:56:35 pm
Well, there's something to what you're saying. (Ignoring all the "trolling" and AA-fire directed against said trolls) But morals are sort of arbitrary. I mean, they evolve. As society changes, morals change. And morals are, in effect, just how society keeps itself together. So there is truth--merit even--to the level one stuff... as far as evolution goes (do not start to debate evolution now (unless Kazan approves)).

What it all comes down to (the way I see it) is preservation (and benefit) of the species. If something helps the species, or society (the current state of the species), then society benefits (or is able to go on doing what it did).

So, in conclusion... I don't really have a point. I'm just trying to get some ideas out there.

But, since this thread isn't about me, I guess I'll take a side on this issue. Kazan, that first post, though maybe not intentional trolling, was very provocative. Neocons = bad (Immoral? Probably.), the average conservative... ignorant or hypocritical, maybe. Immoral? Idunno.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 28, 2006, 09:58:43 pm
not immoral - just mired in a less-advanced moral thinking mode based upon authoritarianism
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: KappaWing on October 28, 2006, 11:22:42 pm
Rictor, I'd have to disagree with you there. [Referring to long post near beginning of thread] rebelliousness is not always synonymous with non-conformist, you seem to use the terms interchangably. It doesent "cut both ways", since the redneck you refer to has only acheived level 2 reasoning. He does not think for himself, his "culture" dictates his behavior. The "free-spirit" you refer to does think for himself, showed by how he deviates from other free spirits, therefore he does think for himself and can be given the honorary title of "rebellious", or in this case, level 3 moral reasoning.

not immoral - just mired in a less-advanced moral thinking mode based upon authoritarianism

Agreed, but is it nature or nurture that determines which level we achieve?

I think its nurture because it's usually a consequence of their upbringing (red states, blue states). It all depends if you were brought up to be open minded and freethinking, or closed-minded with a "do what yer told" mentality. Makes you wonder; If Kaz were born in a neocon family, would he turn out to be a neocon?  :eek2:
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 29, 2006, 12:10:46 am
*insert post here*

Aside from the gigantic ad hominem that was damn near this entire post, and the fact your fiancee's condition has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of discussion...oh wait. Let's not leave that aside.

Because it's true. Quite frankly, I don't care. Perhaps it's because I'm locked into logical argumentative mode, since I just finished a paper, but perhaps that's a good place to be for this discussion. And perhaps I just naturally have no sympathy for arguments that are intended to provoke it. Whatever gains of ethos you may have made were in any case erased by the rather personal and definitely uncalled for nature of your attack on Trashman, followed by empty boasting. Jesus man, it's like you intended to undo whatever you may have done.

Do shut up.

While we're here, let's also point out that you made nice unproveable assertions...and to be quite frank, given what I know of you, I have to state that I severely doubt anyone with much willpower would spend any time around you at all. You are just that unpleasant, that superior, and that goddamn conceited. The only people who would associate with you willingly that I can imagine would be those who end up being controlled by you. Perhaps you are radically different in reality, where people can punch you in the face for acting like you do here. I hope so, for your fiancee's sake.

I'd also like to register, as someone who was diagnosed as clinically depressed once upon a time, my subscription to Marcus Aurelius. "No man suffers anything he is not fitted by nature to bear."
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 29, 2006, 12:31:48 am
I'm going to have to disagree with the good emperor on that point.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Herra Tohtori on October 29, 2006, 12:57:12 am
What a thread... :rolleyes:


To be honest, there are mainly two kinds of psychology, which both divide to several branches (search wikipedia if you want to know more).

First, there is the "traditional" psychology that tries to understand and define in abstract terms the inner workings of human mind on both conscious and subconscious levels. There are many approaches on this kind of psychology.

Then there is neuropsychology, which aims to understand how the structure and function of the brain relate to specific psychological processes that are defined by traditional psychology. It is closely related to neurological research, which is undisputedly scientific, and whatever one may think of traditional psychology and its scientific integrity or lack thereof, one should recognize the solid scientific basis of neuropsychology.

Neuropsychology works as an important link between psychology and psychiatry. Psychology in general is science of mind, while psychiatry is the practical medical science that aims to help people with mental problems.

Obviously, there are several approaches to that goal too. One of them is "chemical approach", which is most closely linked to neuropsychology and neurology. Many psychiatric conditions are a direct or secondary results of brain malfunction, like for example clinical depression which is characterized by lack of serotonine. Other approaches include psychotherapy and other more traditional treatments, which can be equally efficient as chemical approach, and in many cases even better. Regardless of how different psychiatric conditions are treated, lack of will power is more of a symptom than cause of disease in 99.9% of cases. The rest is statistical noise.


Okay, thats my part of trying to extinguish the flames on this thread about psychology. Back to actual topic.


So, levels of moral reasoning.

Quote
I postulate that most social conservatives are mired in Level 2 thinking, while most social liberals have attained level 3 reasoning.


I'm not sure of that kind of generalization. As you menton yourself, many people never reach the third level of Kohlberg's scale of moral reasoning.

I don't doubt there are many social liberals that have their values just as locked as conservatives, but just in different direction. In cases of people who don't go beyond conventional morals, the moral structure of their mindset depends more of environmental factors: home, friends, so forth. So, those people who don't go beyond level two and have conservative background end up having conservative morals (no surprize there), but also liberals' kids who don't go beyond level two end up having liberal set of moral beliefs.

After all there are bound to be just as fundamental liberals as there are fundamental conservatives. By fundamental liberal I mean people who have liberal values for the sake of them being liberal values and not because they've thought through matters and built their moral structure by themselves. So I don't think it's valid to say that "people who get into 3rd level end up being liberal and those stuck on 2nd level end up as conservatives". However, it might be useful to research how backgrounds affect on development of moral reasoning - whether the background and environment encourage or discourage it.

It's entirely possible and plausible to speculate that conservative environment doesn't really encourage people to develop their own moral structure, as there already is one set of moral beliefs that most people around (at least seem to) follow. However, liberal environment can do this to a kid also. I actually think that growing up in a diverse environment that has different sets of moral beliefs around will most likely lead to a person developing his or her own set of beliefs more often than growing up in an environment where everyone have same opinions about something. Controversies may help one to understand that there might not be one and only hole sacred opinion of God to follow, or alternatively that the most liberal option is not necessarily the best one in all cases, which would eventually lead to level three moral reasoning, when person forms his or her own opinions about things and acts accordingly.

So, I'd say that the percentage of people on levels 2 and 3 amongst liberals and conservatives is probably not that different. There might be slightly more people on level three amongst liberals, but there sure are "locked-minded" fundies on both groups, people who have conventional morality adjusted and fastened to the dominant morality set around them.


So, in short.

Level of moral reasoning doesn't make one something, and being something probably is not a good indication to defining one's level of moral reasoning either.

However, unilateral exposure to a certain moral structure - be it conservative or liberal - is likely to lead to adoption of that particular moral mindset, while being exposed to many points of view and multiple sets of morality, ie. learning to know different kinds of people, is more likely to lead to realization that one set of moral beliefs is not necessarily better than another, which would likely lead to post-conventional moral reasoning.


That's my view on this subject.


Then there is the question of whether or not postventional morality is "better" than conventional morality, or whether or not they contribute to worth of a human. I'd say the level of moral reasoning doesn't effect human worth, but it can affect the integrity of person's argumentation. Conventional morale easily falls into the same pit that those proverbial "ten billion flies that can't be wrong" came from. Arguments based on post-conventional morale do not face this problem - their worth is directly proportionaly to the aptness of the argumentee.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Descenterace on October 29, 2006, 04:13:42 am
My biggest problem with psychology is that it seems like it's trying to fill in the blanks where neurological science hasn't caught up yet. There's so much we still don't understand about the way in which the physical brain functions, and we're trying to form all these theories about behavior without the nuts and bolts. I think that in the future, we'll see brain science render certain fields of psychology and philosophy obsolete. (And believe me, it hurts me to say that because epistemology is an amazing subject.)

So Physics renders Chemistry obsolete?

Different levels of abstraction and complexity. Neuroscience is about the physical workings. Psychology is about the mind. I suppose it's a bit like the difference between hardware and software; one can be understood with little to no knowledge of the other, but it helps to understand both.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: WMCoolmon on October 29, 2006, 05:00:06 am
The initial post didn't really make an argument, it just made an unfounded assertion. Apparently you expect other people to make your arguments for you.

I would argue that rating either ideology on a linear scale is going to end up being a pure fallacy. I would agree that Conservatives are more likely to promote social harmony at the cost of complete personal freedom in setting your moral compass - but that's more of a shades-of-gray thing than anything. Anytime you're with somebody else, there's going to be pressure for one side to adopt the same morals of the other. And complete chaos is no better than a completely monolithic society.

Plus, if you view liberal as 'taking chances to make things better' and conservative as 'sticking with the old ways because they're tried and true', there's not any good reason to completely remove the balance of the other side. Sure, it may be completely right to take action X - but if one side decides that for some strange reason, it just wants to keep doing action Y, it will cause a disagreement. If side X has to listen to side Y, then certain flaws may be exposed in the original action that can be corrected before they occur. If side X completely disregards Y, and action X turns out to be a failure, then they just end up being even more screwed.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Ford Prefect on October 29, 2006, 11:59:28 am
So Physics renders Chemistry obsolete?

Different levels of abstraction and complexity. Neuroscience is about the physical workings. Psychology is about the mind. I suppose it's a bit like the difference between hardware and software; one can be understood with little to no knowledge of the other, but it helps to understand both.
But the mind doesn't exist. "Mind" is a metaphysical word we employ to describe the summation of our brain functions that we don't yet understand, in part because we can't escape the belief that the capacity to think somehow makes us more than objects. But it doesn't-- we're just stuff like everything else, and there has to be a fundamental physical reason for everything that we do. If we possessed a complete understanding of these minute physical causes, I think the mind would be revealed as the meaningless abstraction it really is.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 29, 2006, 12:17:06 pm
Rictor, I'd have to disagree with you there. [Referring to long post near beginning of thread] rebelliousness is not always synonymous with non-conformist, you seem to use the terms interchangably. It doesent "cut both ways", since the redneck you refer to has only acheived level 2 reasoning. He does not think for himself, his "culture" dictates his behavior. The "free-spirit" you refer to does think for himself, showed by how he deviates from other free spirits, therefore he does think for himself and can be given the honorary title of "rebellious", or in this case, level 3 moral reasoning.

not immoral - just mired in a less-advanced moral thinking mode based upon authoritarianism

Agreed, but is it nature or nurture that determines which level we achieve?

I think its nurture because it's usually a consequence of their upbringing (red states, blue states). It all depends if you were brought up to be open minded and freethinking, or closed-minded with a "do what yer told" mentality. Makes you wonder; If Kaz were born in a neocon family, would he turn out to be a neocon?  :eek2:

it is mostly nurture, but some people have a naturally tendancy toward logic that cannot be supressed - i was raised christian for example
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: KappaWing on October 29, 2006, 01:09:49 pm
Well being raised Christian could mean an entire spectrum of different things. You could either be raised in an open minded, liberal, yet still christian environment, where christianity is more open to interpretation and education about the rest of the world is encouraged, or you could be raised in a fundamentalist brainwashing manner. When youre as young as a child, its nearly impossible to resist the brainwashing and indoctrination practices of a fundamentalist family. they **** with your mind in your formative years, and after that, youre screwed up for life, no matter what others try to do, then you pass it on to your children. The same could be applied to liberals in some circumstances, but mostly it does not apply due to the anti-indoctrination nature of liberalism. As I said before, this is why it doesent cut "both ways".
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 29, 2006, 01:22:13 pm
my parents are liberal christians, according to christian standards of liberalism - but christian upbringing is still brainwashing.

[edit]
i had crossposted this on another forum where my fiancee posts - this was her response

Quote from: Fancy Bits
I think a large part of the problem is who you meet and how you classify them.

Our current "leaders" such as Bush, Cheney, Falwell, Robertson, etc are most likely stuck in level II or under, as as many people who veiw the world in black/white (Parsnips is a good example of this.) Now, its reasonable to assume that the perception of a group will be largely affected by those who you see/hear most often, especially if what they are saying/doing is so egregious that it sticks out in your mind. Therefore the "conservatives" (I distinguish between old-conservatives of yesteryear and current conservatives) may come across as very much lacking in moral maturity, just as feminists (for someone who doesnt think too highly of feminism to start with) will most likely have their opinion affected by the nutzoid lesbian-seperatists and the like.

However, it is most likely impossible to really classify a group, especially a large one, into a moral-maturity group unless perhaps its an age group or a group that has been raised almost exactly the same (all catholic-school students from the midwest raised in a 2-parent conservative household) and even that might be iffy. Even to say "most" I think is misleading since you may be talking about millions of people.

Meanwhile, many of the higher-moral-maturity people may also stay very quiet, especially in our current atmosphere of childish poo-slinging with very little of traditional politics (as the founding fathers envisioned it) going on. I know I've lost my love of politics and even changed my career orientation because I decided I couldnt stand to work with politicians like those in office now. I'm not saying I'm level 3 morality, just that many moderates are staying quiet out of frustation and disgust.

I will agree that our current conservative leaders are probably in Level II though. It would be interesting to see a) what % of people do get to Level III, b) if it is at all related to political orientation and c) if its related to education, since (if I got this right) the higher educated you are the more likely you are to be liberal.

hammer, meet nail head
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: KappaWing on October 29, 2006, 03:03:33 pm
You two make a perfect couple!  :)
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Windrunner on October 29, 2006, 03:05:39 pm
i am giving everyone a friendly warning, keep this thread civil and on-topic or I will CLOSE it.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Bobboau on October 29, 2006, 03:09:01 pm
I find it hard to see how thats posable given it started out with; "this theory shows how liberals are moray superior to conservatives"
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: TrashMan on October 29, 2006, 03:46:42 pm
:mad2: trashman if we ever meet in real life, i'm going to stomp a mudhole in your ass for that statement - you just insulted my fiancee

half the people in this ****ing thread don't know **** about this science - and you're the worst of them - you just insulted my fiancee you ****ing asshole

weakminded she is not - medications are for CHEMICAL imbalances in the brain you farking moron - she has 100x the willpower that you have and 100x the intelligence, but she also has a MEDICAL CONDITION that you're too ****ing stupid and bigoted to understand


No insult intended man.

Chemichal imbalances in brain fall under a mdical condition and taking some medication is the natural thing to do.

When I said weakminded people I meant those who go and cry on the psychiatrists shoulder and tell him their whole history in details and who are physicly healthy.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Janos on October 29, 2006, 03:58:48 pm
:mad2: trashman if we ever meet in real life, i'm going to stomp a mudhole in your ass for that statement - you just insulted my fiancee

half the people in this ****ing thread don't know **** about this science - and you're the worst of them - you just insulted my fiancee you ****ing asshole

weakminded she is not - medications are for CHEMICAL imbalances in the brain you farking moron - she has 100x the willpower that you have and 100x the intelligence, but she also has a MEDICAL CONDITION that you're too ****ing stupid and bigoted to understand

No insult intended man.

Chemichal imbalances in brain fall under a mdical condition and taking some medication is the natural thing to do.

When I said weakminded people I meant those who go and cry on the psychiatrists shoulder and tell him their whole history in details and who are physicly healthy.

Uhm. If mind and physical wellbeing are, in fact, completely interwined and the difference between the two is arbitrary and artificial, then shouldn't that, by definition, make your last sentence paradoxical?
And if not so - if mind and physiological issues are separate entities -, then wouldn't it be silly and likewise paradoxical to say person's physical health somehow disqualifies him from being mentally sick?
People who cry on the psychiastrist's shoulder usually have a reason to do so, no matter how trivial you hold the issue.
If mind and body are one, then mental problems are part of physical problem (or health issues).
If mind and body are not one, then physical problems and mental problems exist independant of each other.
If there is a grey zone then define it.

Also, hopping on "Kazan's first post was so inflammatory and condescesing that calling his on that is not trolling, no matter if he wants it to be so" bandwagon. If someone makes an inflammatory remark then he is none the less immune to rebuttal than those replying to him.
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Night Hammer on October 29, 2006, 03:59:39 pm
haha, hes gonna stomp a mudhole in you dude, watch out :lol:


kaz havent you been engaged for like 4 years, when are yall tying the knot
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 29, 2006, 04:20:46 pm
When I said weakminded people I meant those who go and cry on the psychiatrists shoulder and tell him their whole history in details and who are physicly healthy.

oops.. my bad - sorry
Title: Re: kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning
Post by: Kazan on October 29, 2006, 04:21:58 pm
kaz havent you been engaged for like 4 years, when are yall tying the knot

in two weeks