Morality

[Pah]

So you don't believe in absolute morality? You seem to be saying that morality is entirely a human construct, that right and wrong are as society defines them.

This sounds like (Kohlberg) level 2 thinking.

I, frankly, don't believe in any absolutes. And yes that is what I say and Kohnler sees as well.

But I see it as a firm level 5 and somewhat into level 6.

Bob

 

[Valjean]

"...if animal cruelty is truly a moral issue, how would one reconcile the ingesting of animal flesh?"

As a vegan, such reconciliation is not a personal problem, and if food species were allowed to live comfortable lives and then humanely slaughtered I'd have less objection to the meat industry. Unfortunately, family farms and animals allowed to move about freely in pastures cannot compete economically with factory farms. If dogs or cats were raised in factory farm conditions it would be a flagrant violation of numerous anti-cruelty statutes and the general public would be morally outraged.

Why is it OK to mistreat a chicken or pig, but not a dog or cat? What's the difference -- from a moral perspective.

"but I see it as a firm level 5 and somewhat into level 6."
You mean stages 5 or 6, there are two stages in three levels. I still don't see where the universal principles are superceding the social principles here, though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I guess that I am saying planet over species because the species will definitely NOT survive without the planet, but if the planet (ecologically speaking) survives, over time, another sentient species may evolve.

I suspected a false dilemma, which is why I said: "if planet or species were ever a real and viable issue, I would vote species in a heartbeat."

 

[Pah]

"but I see it as a firm level 5 and somewhat into level 6."
You mean stages 5 or 6, there are two stages in three levels. I still don't see where the universal principles are superceding the social principles here, though.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html
The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

Levels , stages. -sorry, I got lost in them. You are right

Bob

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I suspected a false dilemma, which is why I said: "if planet or species were ever a real and viable issue, I would vote species in a heartbeat."

My apologies, Deut. I did not digest your words completely, before responding. Mea culpa.

TVOR

 

[robtex]

I ran across an interesting quote I'd like to share about human morality:

"... all morality involves encounter with the other person; in measuring the morality of our acts, recourse to absolute standards - whether derived from a revealed code or natural law - is often impossible. It is often a matter of choosing among competing values, sacrificing some to realize another."

Thoughts?

Scott you said it was a catholic who said this which makes it very very intregueing. I may be speaking from ignorance but it is my understand that the Catholic Bible says and the Catholics say, that morality is absolute handed down to man from God. Now this fella comes along and says it is relative and based on the varying belief structures a society may have.

I have to say I think I would really like this open-minded Catholic a lot but I am confused as to why a Catholic priest would come out and say morality is relative when the church, from my understanding says it is absolute and passed to man from God.

 

[cardero]

Seyorni writes: So you don't believe in absolute morality? You seem to be saying that morality is entirely a human construct, that right and wrong are as society defines them.

Morality can only have values which must be gauged by degrees which are defined by us individually. We all do not have the same “thermometers” when it comes to morality. A country’s laws are only outfitted to appease consideration and to construct a fair system of respect for each other (or at least the illusion of respect). As we can plainly observe, sometimes people overstep these values. Sometimes with unintentional consequences. The morality that we have defined for ourselves, as a society, are not the same values presented from GOD. GOD I believe does not subscribe to the same system of right and wrong that we adhere to no matter how much we would desire Him too.