What level of moral development do you function at?

Question

I believe this is largely affected by our personal spiritual beliefs. My analysis is that the majority of religious people, specially Christians & Muslims, are stuck in 'Pre-Conventional' levels with a few at 'Convetional'.

*Pre-Conventional
Individuals are concerned with external rewards('heaven'?) and punishment and obey authority ('God-Church'?) to avoid detrimental personal consequences (i.e. "Hell"?).
There is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. (narrow minded?)

*Conventional
Lives up to 'expectations' of others. (Good-boy/Good-Girl stage.) Rules and authority exists only to further support 'stereotypical social roles' (i.e. 'male dominance'?).

*Post-Conventional
Aware that people hold different values, they seek creative solutions to ethical dilemmas. Balance of concerns for individual and concern for common good. Guided by an internal sets of values and standards, encouraging others to think for themselves.

Agree? Disagree?

I'm not attacking religion, I know that many Atheist are capable and do function at pre-conventional levels. Also I think that its quite possible that Jesus, Buddha, and other spiritual leaders were functioning at high Post-Conventional levels.

Thanks Ray, your opinion is welcomed and I'll definitely consider what you said.

Answer 1

This is an interesting theory of moral development level that seems to mirror something I read in a psychology text about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The last level would seem to mirror the final levels of Maslow's hierarchy -- the "Self-Actualization" and "Self-Trancendance" levels.

"Maslow's basic position is that as one becomes more self-actualized and self-transcendent, one becomes more wise (develops wisdom) and automatically knows what to do in a wide variety of situations. Daniels (2001) suggests that Maslow's ultimate conclusion that the highest levels of self-actualization are transcendent in their nature may be one of his most important contributions to the study of human behavior and motivation."

Personally, I would like to believe that I would be at the Post-Conventional level in your theory, especially as my religion encouraces ethical thought and personal responsiblity for one's own actions, but if I am wrong about my level of "advancement", I am wrong......

Answer 2

Someone's been reading Kohlberg? Are you an education major?
You have not included the fact that there are levels within the stages. For instance, in the post conventional stage 5 one of the principals is the "greatest good for the greatest number" in other words, majority rules. I find this rather dangerous actually. Who decides what the greatest good is and who the greatest number is.
Pre conventional is the idea of reward and punishment but as a Christian and I've said this before on here, my motivation for being a Christian is not about Heaven and Hell. It's about worshipping God and my life being an act of worship.

Answer 3

if one is actually open minded, they will read this


I disagree with your definitions. God is my goal, not benefits.

correct, I am narrow minded. loose-mindedness is a bad thing in my opinion. for me, it seems like open-minded people contradict their own core beliefs far too often. for example, buddhism and hinduism believe that there are many paths to the divine, the spiritual, all in good lights. however, one can not believe contrary to this, or they are no longer in the light. what the heck? I can believe anything I want as long as I can't believe I have the truth?

narrow-minds are secure and harder to tempt. don't tell me great people throughout history weren't narrow minded. everyone who has ever had a theory thought it was right until proven wrong by their own standard.

you misunderstand the biblical view of a husband greatly. but that's a separate topic. here, search for this pastor online: Heitzig. he's explained it the best I've heard thus far.

rules exist to keep order and to deter chaos. your definition of "conventional" doesn't seem to work.

narrow minded means one does think for themself, hence, narrow. if one is open minded, one gets input from wherever, whoever, and whatever, rather than selective thinking based on logic and logical possibility. it's either one is right, or one is wrong. everybody witha conflicting idea can't be right. that's simply illogical.

Answer 4

I'm not quite sure that you can so neatly categorize morality.
I like to think that I fit the third category, but the wording kind of leads you there.
I'm not sure my personal solutions to ethical problems are all that creative, and I don't believe in a balance between the individual and the group; if you are just to each individual, then it follows that you are just to the group.
I also have to say that not all theists behave morally based solely on a fear of God. Most of them believe they would be forgiven of any crime, and thus win God's grace again, so there is no real consequence if they say they're sorry after.

Answer 5

I wish that you had cited sources for your definitions. As an agnostic, I tend to agree with your assessments and would therefore consider myself to be post-conventional. My morality and behavior are based upon my satisfying myself, my aspiration being to live so as to be happy with what I have accomplished so far as I am able, to do no harm to others, regardless the reward or lack thereof. I have no desire to be "assigned" to any religious "paradise" and will be satisfied simply to be dead when the time arrives if that is operational principle of the Universe.

Answer 6

I guess I agree, my "adherence" to my morals and view on them align with post-conventional. I'm an atheist.

Not so sure about the differention between the various classifications, it seems rather artificial in terms of Ethics.