Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:42:51
In reply to Re: Moral dilemma » special_k, posted by LegWarmers on March 22, 2006, at 6:56:25
Ah. This is semi-familiar... Before... I don't know if I meant to say 'moving beyond concrete operational' or 'moving beyond formal operational'... I think there was another stage but I can't quite remember...
I'm not so convinced those stages really occur... And I'm not so convinced they really are distinct (conceptually)... And I'm not so sure that people don't regress at times (when they are sick, when they have a great personal involvement etc).
> In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
Though some ethicists consider that there aren't universal ethical principles. Also... Most ethicists consider that even if there are universal ethical principles, we don't know what they are / how to formulate them yet. Hence... If Kohlberg is right that we need to use the universal ethical principles in moral reasoning and we can't use a principle we don't know... Then nobody would be able to engage in moral reasoning (perhaps though I can see a way out for him perhaps).
> Decisions are met categorically in an absolute way rather than hypothetically in a conditional way.
Utilitarians think moral imperitives (what you 'should' do) is hypothetical / conditional:
IF act x leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number... THEN act x is the morally right thing to do (the IF THEN makes the statement conditional. If the part between the IF and the THEN turns out to be false then there is no reason to think the part between the THEN and the end of the sentence is that act that one should do). Kantian ethics is categorical. Acts of injustice are wrong. Period. Doesn't matter if an injust act leads to the greatest happiness... Injust acts are wrong categorically. Sounds like Kohlberg is trying to be Kantian here...> In addition, laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.
Ah. So justice is the thing for Kohlberg. I wonder how he cashes out justice (Just acts are good acts period! And how he defines that... In virtue of what are just acts good acts?) Is whether an act a just act supposed to be universal? What do all just acts have in common?
> While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.
Tee hee.
That is because Kohlberg seems to think that stage 6 is the correct moral theory... I'm guessing stage 6 would be his moral theory... Tee hee.
I would say that ethicists should be taken as paradigmatic cases of sophisticated moral reasoners.
There is much disagreement.
In fact... My officemate (former) was trying to defend a sophisticated egocentric ethics...
poster:special_k
thread:623115
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060318/msgs/623430.html