Stages of moral sophistication

[James R]

This is from another thread, but I thought it might be worth giving it a wider airing.

In my opinion, there are a number of stages in moral development. Each stage involves widening the circle of objects who deserve moral consideration. Each individual person, as they mature (or not), progresses to a certain stage, and then remains there. Roughly, the stages are something like this:

1. Me
2. Me and my mother.
3. Me and my immediate family.
4. Me and my extended family.
5. Me and my family and friends.
6. Me, my family, friends and aquaintances.
7. Me, my family, friends, aquaintances, and the people who live near me.
8. All of the above + people who live in the same nation as me.
9. All of the above + people of other nations.
10. All of the above + non-human animals.
11. All of the above + "the planet".

Sociopaths never get past stage 1. Infants are usually at stage 2. Most normal children quickly get to stage 3, where they may remain for a while until they get older.

Many adults get to stage 4 or 5, but never go beyond that for their entire lives in any real sense. Some community-minded individuals make it to level 7. Even fewer get to stage 8, and an almost negligible number get to stage 9. I'd say that less than 1% of humanity ever gets to level 10 or 11.

Opinions?

 

[Gustav]

question
where would a patriot fit in? guy obviously cares about his nation but perhaps not about his family or neighbours.

ahh
i get it
the presumption here is of rationality
quite unwarranted i think

 

[Quantum Quack]

Interesting thread James R.
Might I suggest you add another level to the bottom of the list :
"12: All of the above + the universe"

Would just complete the schema you are suggesting, I think.

 

[Gustav]

yeah
cant have those pesky greys feeling left out
they too need some loving ja?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Say someone comes up with a way of hyper space travel. Obviously moral consideration is necessary to include the universe in general. Or say a way to destroy matter comes along. Does this not have moral implications?

 

[Gustav]

pardon qq
the apparent sarcasm was not intended

theoretically, the universe could be a logical addition
so could planes of existence/dimensions tho more exotic

so yes it does have moral implications

 

[Baron Max]

Hmm, perhaps I can add a line to make the stages mean a little more to some of us?

8a. All of the above + people who live in the same nation as me - including all of the vicious, mean people who kidnap, sexually abuse, torture and kill little girls about 10-yrs old or so.

Just wanted to be sure to round out the "people" that we should all care about, love and give all possible moral consideration to.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Just to put the Baron's statement into context, in the original thread I estimated that Baron Max would sit at about level 4 on my scale. Judge for yourselves.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I go to 5, but then I also care about non-human animals and the planet.
I also believe you can't logically reach 10 and 11 if you have 6,7, 8 and 9.
Doesn't make sense. Caring about 6, 7, 8 and 9 is directly harmfull to the planet and non-human animals. To hope all people live full successfull happy lives is to hope countless animals are displaced and outcompeted and that the planet degrades terribly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

pardon qq
the apparent sarcasm was not intended

theoretically, the universe could be a logical addition
so could planes of existence/dimensions tho more exotic

so yes it does have moral implications

Actually I thought reference to "greys" etc was quite apt and certainly humorous....

 

[Quantum Quack]

The heirachy appears to be more about proximity. With the "me" in the center of everything. Yet it is the appreciation of someone elses perspective [ center ] that leads to moral empathy.

So it appears that as your perspective empathy expands beyond the immediate emotional proximity one gains a higher or more sophisticated moral perspective.

Of course, not many have immediate awareness of "greys" or have spent much time on thinking about the possibility of Extra T life. With good reason as well I guess. [ no evidence to support the thinking ]

So the concept of universal morality is generaly too remote for most, if not all. [ humans]

So "proxiimity" seems to be a key aspect of JamesR's list.
{Proximity meaning closeness - not necessarilly in distance terms}

 

[Quantum Quack]

I go to 5, but then I also care about non-human animals and the planet.
I also believe you can't logically reach 10 and 11 if you have 6,7, 8 and 9.
Doesn't make sense. Caring about 6, 7, 8 and 9 is directly harmfull to the planet and non-human animals. To hope all people live full successfull happy lives is to hope countless animals are displaced and outcompeted and that the planet degrades terribly.

So you don't think it is possible to achieve a happy balance that serves all objectives?
I tend to think it is possible, not easy but certainly possible.

 

[Baron Max]

...stages in moral development. Each stage involves widening the circle of objects who deserve moral consideration.

James, what does "moral consideration" mean?

And in your system of stages, what, exactly is the criteria for one to be in or go to a higher level? I.e., if he just CLAIMS to care, is that enough? Or does he have to actually DO something?

And if he has to DO something, if he's to be in stage 8, All of the above + people who live in the same nation as me, does it mean that he has to DO that same "something" for each and every person on your list? I.e., if he gives ten pounds of "moral consideration" to Joe, does it mean that he has to also give ten pounds of "moral consideration" to every other single person in his nation?

You say that I'm at stage 4 ...how did you arrive at that determination? By reading what I've posted on the sciforums? ..because you actually don't know me other than that. I could, in real life, be a gazillionaire giving all of my money to all the people on the planet!

So, see, ...what is the criteria for your various stages? If it's just bullshit psycho-babble, then put me down for stage 12!!

Baron Max

 

[Roman]

I can't honestly bring myself past 5. Some aquantainces are useful, or I may want them as friends. Or for sex.

Alright, I get to six.

 

[Baron Max]

I can't honestly bring myself past 5. Some aquantainces are useful, or I may want them as friends. Or for sex. Alright, I get to six.

Okay, but what's the criteria that you used to evaluate yourself? And what is "moral consideration"? What does that mean? How do you measure it?

Baron Max

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I think it means "do you misplace the empathetic urges which were designed to be applied to your social unit by applying them to complete strangers" if so you're morally enlightened. Or messed up, like a calf sucking on a perverted farmers penis instead of it's mother's teet.
Can't remember which.

Are you bothered when your rivals fail?
If so you're very advanced morally, and arguably mentally disabled by real life standards.

 

[Baron Max]

Yeah, Doc! See, that's exactly what gets to me ...that and the idea that I can just SAY that I'm sympathetic/empathetic to others, even while not actually being so. I.e., lying like hell just to "fit" into the social ideals of the day! Or lying to keep from "shocking" them! (Or pretending that they're shocked?)

If I say/claim to really, really care about the plight of the Pakistani earthquake victims, but DO absolutely nothing, is that really "caring"? And should I be put on James' stages of moral sophistication just because I can lie pretty well?

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

James, what does "moral consideration" mean?

I mean that in deciding how to act, in moral terms, you take into account the interests of other groups of people, as listed, particularly where their interests conflict with your own.

For example, if you act to make your own life as comfortable as possible, regardless of any consequent damage to the environment, then you are at a lower level of moral development than level 11. Similar tests apply for levels below 11.

And in your system of stages, what, exactly is the criteria for one to be in or go to a higher level? I.e., if he just CLAIMS to care, is that enough? Or does he have to actually DO something?

It is not so much for you as for other people to judge, by both your words and your actions - and also by your inaction in certain matters.

You say that I'm at stage 4 ...how did you arrive at that determination? By reading what I've posted on the sciforums?

Yes.

..because you actually don't know me other than that. I could, in real life, be a gazillionaire giving all of my money to all the people on the planet!

You could be, but I'll wager you aren't and you don't. Your posts tell me a lot about you. I might be a terrible judge of character.

 

[Baron Max]

It is not so much for you as for other people to judge, by both your words and your actions - and also by your inaction in certain matters.

So good liars, ones who aren't caught in the lies, might be judged higher on your scale than those who tell the truth?

Your posts tell me a lot about you. I might be a terrible judge of character.

Or I might be a damned good "Devil's Advocate", huh? Or even a damned good liar?

And that's why I seldom, if ever, make personal judgements on forums such as this ...the world is full of liars to begin with, but given absolutely anonymity emboldens them to even great heights(?) of lying.

Sufice to say, James, that I don't like your little scale of "morality" simply because there's far, far too much assumptions to make without any possible method of measure/quantifying/qualifying? I.e., it's what I call psycho-babble ...just talk for talks sake without any real mean or use. But it is cute!

Baron Max

 

[Mr. G]

1. Me
2. Me and my mother.
3. Me and my immediate family.
4. Me and my extended family.
5. Me and my family and friends.
6. Me, my family, friends and aquaintances.
7. Me, my family, friends, aquaintances, and the people who live near me.
8. All of the above + people who live in the same nation as me.
9. All of the above + people of other nations.
10. All of the above + non-human animals.
11. All of the above + "the planet".

I'm not seeing much empathy for cats, dogs, marsupials or virii in that morality tape measure.

You may somewhat convincingly argue that pets are "immediate family", even though "people" seems to be the main order of the exercise.

"Widening of circles" has its obvious limitations.

What would I know of that?

Plays good to the choir, though.