Kholberg's 6 Stages of Moral Development

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bounwXLkme4



https://sproutsschools.com/kohlbergs-6- ... velopment/
Lawrence Kohlberg's theory claims that our development of moral reasoning happens in six stages:
1. Obedience and Punishment,
2. Self-interest
3. Interpersonal Accord and Conformity
4.Authority and maintaining social order,
5.Social Contract,
6.Universal Ethical principles.

Kohlberg claims that we reach one stage after another showing an ever-deeper understanding of moral questions. The stages themselves are structured in three levels:
1. Pre-Conventional,
2. Conventional and
3. Post-Conventional.

................
Now if there are stages of moral development within the brain of all humans, there must be some sort of physical structures, functions and processes related to morality and moral development.

These physical structures re moral developments are factual and objective, thus they are in a way objective moral facts.

The next question is whether there are physical ought-not-ness related to morality, e.g. the ought-not-ness to kill another human or enslave another human, and the likes.

I believe there exist such physical moral ought-not-ness or ought-ness within the self represented by specific sets of physical neurons, neural algorithm, genes, DNA and quarks.
As such the moral function exists in all humans but active at different stages.
These are the objective moral facts as reflected in the New Paradigm of Morality.

To focus on the rightness and wrongness of thoughts and ideas related to supposedly what is morality is not morality proper. This is the narrow and shallow dogmatic thinking of Peter Holmes et. al.

Views?

[Iwannaplato]

Kohlberg’s 6 Stages of Moral Development
Views?

Let's assume Kohlberg's is correct. Let assume that brain development independent of culture leads to these states. Great. That could be called a fact about morals.

That does not mean that any particular act is objectively moral or not.
Further, and more relevant to VA's position, it also does not mean that any of these attitudes is objectively Good or better than previous ones. It would just mean that we humans go through stages. That's it.

And these stages would be different from those that Komodo Dragons go through. KDs become solitary, territorial dominance focused creatures.

Different animals go through different stages and develop different attitudes and tendencies to interaction with members of their species. This doesn't make the behaviors or attitudes or virtues or character traits or rules or arrived at deontology or tendencies to feel about other members of the species right or wrong, Good or Evil, good or bad.

It might mean that these patterns, so far, have lead to continuance of the species. Or they might not, in the long run, have turned out to be as effective as other patterns.

What VA seems not to understand is YES, there are correlations between brains and attitudes and behavior and we can come up with facts about these. But what we cannot do is objectively decide that these patterns are good, bad, evil, right, wrong.

And if we meet an alien species that evolved from a fungus like organism and believed in some kind of Borg (Star Trek reference) idea of the ideal relationship between people and wanted to absorb human intelligences, that is us, in the collective brain, we cannot say they are morally wrong - though we can certainly fight them - nor can this sentient fungus prove
that merging is GOOD.

They cannot correctly assertion that it is a moral fact that merging is good.

And they can't even if they are technologically more advanced than us, just as we are more advanced than Komodo Dragons.

We have different values. That's it. Period.

[Iwannaplato]

To focus on the rightness and wrongness of thoughts and ideas related to supposedly what is morality is not morality proper. This is the narrow and shallow dogmatic thinking of Peter Holmes et. al.

Views?

And this part is crucial. Perhaps PH and VA have been talking past each other for a while. Perhaps when VA talks about moral facts he simply means those tendencies to interact with others that our brains and brain development lead to. Not whether these attitudes are objectively good or evil, etc.

If he is nowhere concluding that behavior X is objectively Good and
nowhere concluding that attitude Y is objective Good
or character trait Z is objectively Good...
if that kind of thinking is NOT what VA is assertion when he talks about moral facts, then this may well have been a communication problems.

VA has in recent years denied that he is talking about rules of behavior.
Sometimes it seems however like he is talking about attitudes/character (for example when he has talked about mirror neurons and empathy) and implicitly arguing that being empathetic in outlook is morally good and this is an objective fact.

If he could make it clear that he is not saying that, but would like if that tendency was enhanced in us, that might ease or even end the long repetitive 'dialogue' with PH, at least in its current tone.

Likewise with Kohlberg's stages. As long as VA is not asserting that those who are in the latter stages of development or morally better, objectively, than people in the earlier stages
and is merely saying
that there are stages in development. That we can find moral attitudes can be a factual finding. that we can find moral attitudes have tendencies to go through a particular line of development can be objectively evaluated.

That the latter stages are Good or Better, that we can't say.