Stages of moral sophistication

[James R]

Baron Max:

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

Yes. *sigh* For a while, perhaps.

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

Maybe, but I don't think so.

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?

Funny. I think I can pretty much peg somebody after only a short conversation on certain topics.


Mr. G:

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

Did you miss level 10?

"Widening of circles" has its obvious limitations.

I never said it was a comprehensive model. Out of curiosity, what do you see as the limitations?

Plays good to the choir, though.

The choir being the lucky few at level 11, I presume. No, Mr. G, it plays very badly to that choir. So disappointing.

 

[Facial]

I largely agree with your hierarchical ladder, James R, but like Dr. Lou Natic said things start to become somewhat independent. I would also include QQuack's #12 universal awareness. Then I would classify 6-9 as developing advanced social morals beyond the scope of friends, and 10-12 as advanced environmental morals beyond the social sequence, since environmental awareness can be realized without having to develop many of the political morals implied in the social sequence.

I would modify your diagram into a fork which branches off after the 4th tier:

1-4 is the critical social sequence.
5-9 would then be the advanced social sequence.
10-12 would be the environmental sequence.

 

[Facial]

Or wait... it might still be a single chain... Gandhi once said how the highest developed form of society endorses vegetarianism or something like that. And it is somewhat obvious from the remarks of *ahem* others that a decrease in political morality is somewhat correlated with the disregard for environmental awareness. Perhaps the correlation is empirical. Perhaps it is tied towards the deficiency in the 1-4 sequence? This is something good to ponder.

 

[Quantum Quack]

obviously every level would attact a huge amount of discussion etc etc.....but I do wonder if creating categories and compartmentalisation is such a good thing. Possibly if held loosely and not allow them as a catalyst for discrimination would have some benefit......we do love to make lists afterall don't we....?
such is our desire for logical rationalism.

 

[nameless]

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".

Include the 'omniverse' inclusive of all 'beings' in whatever form, breathing or not, and what I am seeing, also, is the growth of (access to) Consciousness in 'Man', like a 'ripple' effect, like a fractal propagation (a Klein curtain, for instance)... Like a drop of dye in the ocean, the dye, eventually, becomes ocean...

Sorry to tangent the topic. Carry on...

 

[Roman]

I'm sort of curious how many people would say they're at 10 and 11 (many, many Americans consider themselves environmentalists, far far more than there are actual environmentalists) out of cultural reasons (very trendy these days to be concerned over post-material stuff), but actually be at a 5 or 6.

 

[Baron Max]

.....but I do wonder if creating categories and compartmentalisation is such a good thing. ...<snip>... ...and not allow them as a catalyst for discrimination would have some benefit......

Interesting comment, QQ. And what's even more interesting is that James R. hates racists and racism, yet he's the very one to create this new, wonderful method for continued discrimination between humans who are different! I guess bullying and racism isn't enough for him ...he must create new and different ways to discriminate among humans?

"I'm better than you 'cause I'm a Cat 7 ...ye're only a Cat 5!" Ahh, the ways and methods of human discrimination are many and varied, ain't they?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I'm sort of curious how many people would say they're at 10 and 11 ... out of cultural reasons (very trendy these days to be concerned over post-material stuff), but actually be at a 5 or 6.

James seems to think that we could cull them out after a short time of "interrogating" them!

But ye're right, Roman, people have been lying about such things since the beginning of human existence.

And like was mentioned earlier, this categorization seems to be just one more in a long, long line of ways and methods for dicriminating amongst humans.

Baron Max

 

[Non-Logical-Idea-Guy]

anyone whi tries to define human morality to stages is sick and wrong

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

And what's even more interesting is that James R. hates racists and racism, yet he's the very one to create this new, wonderful method for continued discrimination between humans who are different!

I don't hate racism, Baron Max. I just think it is counterproductive and baseless. I hate the discriminatory activities of many racists.

I think you still don't understand my little list, which isn't surprising. Have you considered that dividing people into categories might be possible without using that as a basis to set up a heirarchy? I guess not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Interesting comment, QQ. And what's even more interesting is that James R. hates racists and racism, yet he's the very one to create this new, wonderful method for continued discrimination between humans who are different! I guess bullying and racism isn't enough for him ...he must create new and different ways to discriminate among humans?

"I'm better than you 'cause I'm a Cat 7 ...ye're only a Cat 5!" Ahh, the ways and methods of human discrimination are many and varied, ain't they?

Baron Max

Baron, I don't think that JamesR list is motivated by discrimination in the negative sense. However I agree that it needs to be recognised that it MAY become a basis for discrimination in a negative sense.

It is a natural function of the human mentality to discriminate however when that discrimination leads to injustice we have a lesser moral standard. So in a sense when a person claims to be an 11 he is exercising discrimnation therefore must drop to a lesser level. So in the end the list is counter productive in that to use it immediately lowers a persons standing in moral sophistication....ha.

But if taken only in a philosophical sense the hierachy can be useful for a person to set his own standards and not reflect those standards onto someone else. As soon as a person judges another person with the list in mind they are exercising negative discrimination.

To use the list purely for personal use would in my opinion be a more productive way of using it. Mind you it is virtually impossible to avoid egocentric discrimination so as I said I think the list has limited value.

 

[Baron Max]

Have you considered that dividing people into categories might be possible without using that as a basis to set up a heirarchy?

Yes, I considered it ...but only for a nano-second! I know how egocentric humans are and/or can be. But, James, look at it this way: "Have you considered that dividing people into races/breeds/whatever-we-call it might be possible without using that as a basis to set up a heirarchy?" Notice the use of the term "might be possible" ...like, anything "might be possible", right? But what are the chances???

Mind you it is virtually impossible to avoid egocentric discrimination so as I said I think the list has limited value.

Agreed! If there IS a list, sooner than later, people will begin to rank their fellows and themselves into division of "good", "bad" and "mediocre"!! With the usual human thought of: I'm better than you!"

Baron Max

 

[nameless]

If you are a follower of a Judeo-Xtian religion it appears that 'morality' is the 'original sin', that seems to be displayed with pride, these days.

The short version...

Morality is defined as the attribution of the judgemental concepts of 'good and evil'.
And, it appears that the 'true believers' have exercised this 'judgementalism' more than 'others'.
According to their mythology, they were forbidden from gaining this 'knowledge' by allegorically being forbidden to eat the 'fruit' from the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil'.

Why, do you think, that all this exercise of 'morality', this forbidden 'judgement', has been turned into a commonly practiced 'virtue' that seems to have spread like a virus yet is seen as a positive thing?
"Looky! Isn't this car that I have stolen beautiful?"
Things have 'come a long way' when people 'value and practice without shame' that which was/is forbidden and stolen.
The 'fruits' of this (tree) disgusting practice are evident all over the world in the forms of war, murder, hatred, intolerance, arrogance, violence, ignorance....
How can one put the 'meme' back in the bottle?
Can one kill a meme?

I agree with the BARON that 'discriminatory categories' based on a hierarchal structure is just more of the same 'ego candy' and WILL be abused! It is inherently anti-evolutionary and anti-social, in my opinion.

Now, who enjoys being on the receiving end of the 'judgement' of others.
One at a time please...
Hellooo....ooo....oo..oo.....

Ok, who 'judges'?
{gets trampled in the rush...}

 

[Facial]

JamesR's list is non-discriminatory. It uses factors based on one's personality, which is based upon merits.

It is a far better indicator of how well a person performs in society than both gender and race combined.

 

[nameless]

Silly, all such lists are discriminatory (not necessarily in a negative sense..) Discrimination is exercised in the creation and definition of 'levels' of qualities; a 'level 1' as 'discriminated from a 'level 2' or a 'level 6' (in behavior, thinking, beliefs, looks, talents, skin color, heritage, whatever.....) It invariably turns ugly quickly...

On the other hand, there need be 'discrimination' happening at all times in the life of man! Without discrimination, there can be no 'existence', no 'self', no 'material universe', no galaxies, no banana, nothing can exist unless we 'discriminate' it from a 'discriminated' something else.

The difference being, apparently, one is a lateral (one thing from the next) discrimination and the other is a heirarchal (judgement, moral) discrimination

The whole thing sounds like an artificial and arbitrary 'illusion' superimposed over the face of 'Oneness'.

Like a cataract in the Eye of God...

 

[James R]

Have you considered that dividing people into races/breeds/whatever-we-call it might be possible without using that as a basis to set up a heirarchy?" Notice the use of the term "might be possible" ...like, anything "might be possible", right? But what are the chances???

Not much, with so many people sitting down at the lower levels of the moral scale.

 

[Baron Max]

..., with so many people sitting down at the lower levels of the moral scale.

Ahh, yes! But James R. is sitting up much higher than the "norm" of human society, huh? Isn't that the same/similar as saying, "I'm better than you!"? See? Just one more of the thousands of ways/methods that people can put themselves above others ...and worse, a "scale" whereby they can "prove it"!

By the way, I'm still trying to figure out how we "measure" this "moral sophistication"? And how we weed out the liars ...the ones who CLAIM that they care, but really don't?

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Ahh, yes! But James R. is sitting up much higher than the "norm" of human society, huh? Isn't that the same/similar as saying, "I'm better than you!"? See?

Yes. But the difference is that I don't force my beliefs on people, or disadvantage people I don't approve of. I am lucky to be educated. I recognise that. So, I try my best to help other people reach their potential.

By the way, I'm still trying to figure out how we "measure" this "moral sophistication"? And how we weed out the liars ...the ones who CLAIM that they care, but really don't?

It's really not hard. For example, on this forum you only need to read a big enough sample of posts by a person to form a reasonably accurate assessment. People on the internet hide behind fake names, but they seldom hide their real personalities or views.

 

[Baron Max]

So, I try my best to help other people reach their potential.

Yeah, you did! You gave us another tool for which to "justify" discrimination, social condemnation and, equally important, social pecking order! Thanks, James, I'm sure many people will appreciate the new tool for prejudice.

...enough sample of posts by a person to form a reasonably accurate assessment.

"...reasonalby accurate assessment"? Don't ya' mean great method of judging others against your own standards of conduct?

Baron Max

 

[Quantum Quack]

May be if you take the list, remove all the numbers and mix up the order in a random fashion the list would be more beneficial.
BTW I agree with you Baron, it is in it's current form a tool for discrimination rather than aspiration.