Devercia
Deleterious Defenistrator
Re: Would You Rather Be Happy Or Good?
Kohlberg tried to define morality(goodness) from a psychological and rational point of view. He stated that people develope into moral stages. Each stage of thinking is a POV that will solve the larger issues of moral ambiguities. Each stage higher will solve more of those issues without conflicting moral objections. People start in stage one and develope to stage 6, but most stop around stage 4.
In stage one, goodness is defined arbitrarily or by punishment/reward. What is good is defined by what ever will be good for the person considering the ambiguity. When I was a child, I remember my brother doing something 'bad.' He was warned. He did it again and was punished. I did it and was immediately punished. I had thought I would receive a warning, and therefor could reap the rewards of the bad act without the punishment. In my view the act was not bad if it was done only once. This sort of moral delema that the current stage cannot solve prompts rethinking and reconsideration of what it is to be moral which leads to development. To this type of person, all 'bad' acts must be punished, regardless of circumstance. Ask a stage one person why killing is bad, and they will tell you it is bad just because. If they elaborate, it because 'you will go to jail/hell.'
In stage two, goodness is more of what can be called a fair deal. It is cooperation. Two brothers cooperating to steal cookies is an example. If one does the stealing and the other distracts, the stealer is morally obligated to provide the distracter with his share. Altruistic concerns are directed towards specific people during this stage. Recognition of the well being of others beyond your cooperation prompts growth out of this stage. Ask someone in stage 2 why murder is bad, and they will say that it is not fair. If the person to be killed has killed, its ok to kill them because it would be fair. While stage 1 is 'eye for an eye' stage 2 consideres what is 'fair.' A stage 2 judge might require an accedental eye gouger to pay for medical bills and lost wages with some pain and suffering money as well.
In stage 3, morality is defined by the good of your peers. This stage is entered most often during puberty. Tribal societies may not develope beyond stage 3, as their society is made up entirely of peers(regardless of intra-tribal hierarchy). People in this stage will form cliques and sub-cultures, conforming to them readily. This is where you see gangs, teens all wearing a uniform of sorts. Deviation from what is 'normal' within the clique is immoral, as is ignoring trends. Clothing and grooming ARE a social statement in this stage. The recognition of the validity of other social groups promotes growth to the next stage. Ask someone in stage 3 why murder is bad, they will tell you because no one else kills. If they are soldiers, it is ok because everyone is killing. A stage 3 judge will sentence based on what the other judges have done in simular cases.
In stage 4, morality is defined by the good of society. Is fighting moral? No, if everyone fought society would crumble. Yes, it is moral, because without it people would be rude and insulting and disregard eachother without fear of his fellow man, and society would crumble. The morals of you society are a clear difiner of morality in this stage. Most adults don't move beyond this stage. Peole in this stage are more conserned with the wellbeing of all rather than justice. Rebellion is not tolerated, even if it is just, unless it is believed the end is for the better of everyone despite the means. Ask someon is stage four if killin is bad. They will sa it is bad because if everyone killed society would weaken. If they say it is ok, it is because the society would strengthen. A stage 4 judge sentences based on the benifit to society. If the murderer has a curable mental condition, its likely best to treat it than to punish him in prison and making him the states liability.
Stage 5 and 6 are often hard to distinguish. Depending on the circumstances, stage 6 may not even exists. Stage 5 defins morality based on harmony rather than justice like stage 4. The difference here is that stage 5 recognizes that law is not justice. Law is more a social contract the a moral obligation. Stage 6 recognises that the many can opress the few; that even when most everyone agrees, that does not make some ting right. To stage 6, morality is more about a universal principle, whatever the reasoning behind that principle may be. Ask a stage 5 if killing is wrong, they will say yes, because we have all agreed not to kill each other; no, because we all recgnize each others right to kill when justified. A stage 5 judge will sentence based on what socitey has agreed is just in the form of law. They do recognize that law is not justice, but believe that in most cases it is so long as the majority think it fair and acceptable. Stage 6 will decide regardless of what others think is right or have agreed to do. Their morality is based on principle independent from society and personal beliefs. Stage six judges are often creative sentencers, perfering justice over harmony. To stage 6, justice creates harmony, not the other way around.
Essentially each stage is a broadening of understanding from the previous. People settle in their stage as long as they do not encounter situations that their stage can't handle. Stage 5 thinkers are very democratic. Suggest that the majority can oppress the minority, and they will likely adopt stage 6 thinking, atleast for that issue. People do not have the necessary understanding to recognize the validity of moral thinking of a person 2 stages above them. Jesus, Ghandi, Socretese: were all stage 6, all of them were killed.
Each stage includes the thinking of the previous with additional breadth. Stage 5/6 understands why a stage four believes something wrong and uses stage 4 arguments. It becomes stage 5/6 when harmony and justice are not the same thing. The person in stage four assumes that harmony is justice, often because they ignore when the two are separate, or do not solidify the distinction in memory when they make it.
Kohlberg tried to define morality(goodness) from a psychological and rational point of view. He stated that people develope into moral stages. Each stage of thinking is a POV that will solve the larger issues of moral ambiguities. Each stage higher will solve more of those issues without conflicting moral objections. People start in stage one and develope to stage 6, but most stop around stage 4.
In stage one, goodness is defined arbitrarily or by punishment/reward. What is good is defined by what ever will be good for the person considering the ambiguity. When I was a child, I remember my brother doing something 'bad.' He was warned. He did it again and was punished. I did it and was immediately punished. I had thought I would receive a warning, and therefor could reap the rewards of the bad act without the punishment. In my view the act was not bad if it was done only once. This sort of moral delema that the current stage cannot solve prompts rethinking and reconsideration of what it is to be moral which leads to development. To this type of person, all 'bad' acts must be punished, regardless of circumstance. Ask a stage one person why killing is bad, and they will tell you it is bad just because. If they elaborate, it because 'you will go to jail/hell.'
In stage two, goodness is more of what can be called a fair deal. It is cooperation. Two brothers cooperating to steal cookies is an example. If one does the stealing and the other distracts, the stealer is morally obligated to provide the distracter with his share. Altruistic concerns are directed towards specific people during this stage. Recognition of the well being of others beyond your cooperation prompts growth out of this stage. Ask someone in stage 2 why murder is bad, and they will say that it is not fair. If the person to be killed has killed, its ok to kill them because it would be fair. While stage 1 is 'eye for an eye' stage 2 consideres what is 'fair.' A stage 2 judge might require an accedental eye gouger to pay for medical bills and lost wages with some pain and suffering money as well.
In stage 3, morality is defined by the good of your peers. This stage is entered most often during puberty. Tribal societies may not develope beyond stage 3, as their society is made up entirely of peers(regardless of intra-tribal hierarchy). People in this stage will form cliques and sub-cultures, conforming to them readily. This is where you see gangs, teens all wearing a uniform of sorts. Deviation from what is 'normal' within the clique is immoral, as is ignoring trends. Clothing and grooming ARE a social statement in this stage. The recognition of the validity of other social groups promotes growth to the next stage. Ask someone in stage 3 why murder is bad, they will tell you because no one else kills. If they are soldiers, it is ok because everyone is killing. A stage 3 judge will sentence based on what the other judges have done in simular cases.
In stage 4, morality is defined by the good of society. Is fighting moral? No, if everyone fought society would crumble. Yes, it is moral, because without it people would be rude and insulting and disregard eachother without fear of his fellow man, and society would crumble. The morals of you society are a clear difiner of morality in this stage. Most adults don't move beyond this stage. Peole in this stage are more conserned with the wellbeing of all rather than justice. Rebellion is not tolerated, even if it is just, unless it is believed the end is for the better of everyone despite the means. Ask someon is stage four if killin is bad. They will sa it is bad because if everyone killed society would weaken. If they say it is ok, it is because the society would strengthen. A stage 4 judge sentences based on the benifit to society. If the murderer has a curable mental condition, its likely best to treat it than to punish him in prison and making him the states liability.
Stage 5 and 6 are often hard to distinguish. Depending on the circumstances, stage 6 may not even exists. Stage 5 defins morality based on harmony rather than justice like stage 4. The difference here is that stage 5 recognizes that law is not justice. Law is more a social contract the a moral obligation. Stage 6 recognises that the many can opress the few; that even when most everyone agrees, that does not make some ting right. To stage 6, morality is more about a universal principle, whatever the reasoning behind that principle may be. Ask a stage 5 if killing is wrong, they will say yes, because we have all agreed not to kill each other; no, because we all recgnize each others right to kill when justified. A stage 5 judge will sentence based on what socitey has agreed is just in the form of law. They do recognize that law is not justice, but believe that in most cases it is so long as the majority think it fair and acceptable. Stage 6 will decide regardless of what others think is right or have agreed to do. Their morality is based on principle independent from society and personal beliefs. Stage six judges are often creative sentencers, perfering justice over harmony. To stage 6, justice creates harmony, not the other way around.
Essentially each stage is a broadening of understanding from the previous. People settle in their stage as long as they do not encounter situations that their stage can't handle. Stage 5 thinkers are very democratic. Suggest that the majority can oppress the minority, and they will likely adopt stage 6 thinking, atleast for that issue. People do not have the necessary understanding to recognize the validity of moral thinking of a person 2 stages above them. Jesus, Ghandi, Socretese: were all stage 6, all of them were killed.
Each stage includes the thinking of the previous with additional breadth. Stage 5/6 understands why a stage four believes something wrong and uses stage 4 arguments. It becomes stage 5/6 when harmony and justice are not the same thing. The person in stage four assumes that harmony is justice, often because they ignore when the two are separate, or do not solidify the distinction in memory when they make it.
