Sunday, February 19, 2006

There's a Reason they call it Liberal Arts

Via Bitch Ph.D.

Michael Berube has a satirical post that talks about Sean Hannity and the Right Wing fear of higher education: Autocratic but fun Friday

This is such a simple issue, but I don't know how we fix it. Higher Education will almost always produce a more liberal, more tolerant individual. Even people born and raised in Conservative homes will be generally more liberal than their parents, though they may still vote Republican for religious or economic reasons. In other words, if you've got money, you vote for Conservatives. If you want to keep your kid Conservative, you send them to a Conservative school that will reinforce their indoctrination, like Liberty University or Yale. Notice that Conservatives hate public schools because they expose kids to other ideas and other cultures than their own. They don't just believe different things than Lefties do. They are thinking differently than we are (and not in a hip, iPod kind of way, either.)

I often talk about Kohlberg's Stages of Moral and Ethical Development. Here's a gross over-simplification that the Left has to thoroughly grok, or we are never going to make any progress with these current waves of fascism. We have got to get out of our heads and *Get This* because reason and logic doesn't work with fundamentalists.

There are three levels of Moral and Ethical thought:

I. Reward and Punishment

Effective from ages 0 - about 8 or 9
(and sometimes again in College.)
What will it get me?
What will it cost me?
Will I get in trouble?

II. Obedience to External Authority

Ages 8 or 9 to around 16

Morality is based on an external Code or source determined by family, environment or peers. (The Herd)
It's the LAW!
It's in the Bible.
It has always been this way.
You are either with us, or against us.


People at this level want to be "good" and often are, but some take it to an extreme.This is the source of Fundamentalism and Fascism and most people never outgrow this. It is literal, either/or, Black or White, Gay or Straight, Faithful or Infidel, Good vs. Evil, God vs. The Devil and God vs. Atheism thinking. Yes, Atheists can also fall into this category. It's not what you believe. It's why and how you believe it and whether you can let someone else believe something different without conflict.

To vary from the prescribed Code is weakness, crime, chaos, anarchy, evil or sin and may be punished by "believers" who claim the "divine right" or assumed authority to enforce their rules on others, often seen as "for their own good." To question or criticize The Code provokes Believer's fear of survival or loss of acceptance by the Herd and will often result in violence. The Code must be preserved at all costs, or believers think that something horrible - death, damnation, castration - will ensue.

That assumed authority is used to justify racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, censorship, book burning, torture and executions as "good" and "right" if it is performed in service of the Code.

III. Self-Determination/Personal Moral Code

becomes possible Age 16+

Morality is based on personal reflection, evaluation, empathy, critcal thought.
I evaluate.
I perceive.
This is logical because...
I might be wrong, you might be right, we both have rights because we are equal.

This level requires Abstract Thought - the ability to consider other points of view, to consider that there may be more than one "right" or "good" answer or code.


We are not having a clash of cultures. We are having a world conflict between two factions - Christian NeoConservatives and Islamist Extremists - both functioning at Level II and trying to get rid of each other; and Western and National conflicts between Levels II. and III.

Europe, Canada, the American Left and, increasingly, South America are (mostly) functioning at Level III.

The Bush Administration, the Middle East and Africa are functioning at Level II and trying to wipe out everyone who doesn't like their particular book of rules. Level II has America staring down the throat of a Christian theocracy and Muslim clerics offering gold as incentive to murder cartoonists. It has Muslim kids burning cars in Paris, and American students spying on their college professors for pay. Christian churches advocating an illegal war, and Americans campaigning against science and tolerance in schools. None of this is "logical" or even consistent with the actual texts of the Bible or the Koran. It IS adamnantly, violently loyal to The Herd.

Notice that the Crybaby Consevatives in America ridicule education; sneer at "nuance"; rail against "Moral Relativism" - those are all Level Three functions and they pose a threat to the Preservation of the Code.

The key is getting our Level II bretheren to allow for the possibility that they might just be wrong while admitting that we might be, too. The problem we have to solve is how do we get them to consider this when they're ready to burn flags and bomb embassies?

I'm trying to figure out how we do that. Any ideas?



16 Comments:

At 4:46 AM, Blogger Richard said...

I assume you still believe society should have laws? And yet, drafting laws, by definition, is a Level II function. I would argue that all governments, even those in Europe and Canada, operate at Level II, while individuals, whatever their political pursuation, operate at Level III. Don't you think conservatives believe that they too evaluate, perceive and then logically draw their conclusions? Of course they do. You've lumped them with Level II merely because you don't agree with their conclusions.

But you're right: The whole Level's "analysis" is a gross oversimlication. Not useful.

 
At 5:06 AM, Blogger Morgaine said...

Apparently not simple enough, since you fail to understand it. Writing laws is not Level II. Blind obedience to them is, though, where as a person at Level III is capable of civil disobedience, amending the law, or even revolution if they feel that is needed.

Your response, however, is most definitely Level II. I'm not concerned by what Conservatives think they do - only what they actually do. Show me a radically Conservative Christian who isn't making money from it, and I'll show you one who either hasn't read, or didn't understand the Bible and probably knows little about its history.

Now the question is, how do we get you to lighten up enough not to be threatened by psychological theory? How do we get Muslims to lighten up enough not to try and kill people who disagree with them?

 
At 7:45 AM, Anonymous Peregrin said...

Unfortunately, Level II thinking as defined by your article precludes the possibility of ever being wrong. I don't see a solution to the problem as defined

 
At 8:12 AM, Blogger KCB said...

Morgaine, thank you for posting this!

I've been having a discussion about evangelical atheists and their defenders this week, in the context of "if there are religious people who support better science education, why not ally with them?" The commenters taking the side of the atheist-purists have all made level II arguments, basically saying,"But our way of thinking is the only right way" and completely missing the larger point. I'll be linking to this.

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger contratimes said...

Morgaine,

Let us assume that you are a master of logic, as you suggest in your post; let us assume that you are not at all fundamentalistic in your thinking. How then, could you not see that your sentence, "Show me a radically Conservative Christian who isn't making money from it, and I'll show you one who either hasn't read, or didn't understand the Bible and probably knows little about its history" is not only fallacious, but clearly motivated by Level II prejudice? You have cast a broad, black-and-white, and condescending statement to the wind here. Where's the nuance, the subtlety? Where's the argument? Moreover, are you also suggesting that Christians who are literate and versed in their Bibles are more fiscally adroit than their illiterate peers? What does your statement even mean? And do you really believe, as you read my comments here, that you "might be wrong," and that I "might be right?" Do you mean to suggest that you do not have an "Us vs. Them" position with me here; that you do not have a "you-are-not-with-us-thus-you must-be-against-us" position on nearly every page of this site?

You've said "We are not having a clash of cultures." This sounds frightfully dogmatic to me; it seems you do see things as definitive and unarguable, even absolute. You even seem to treat Kohlberg's work as, well, absolute. I am wondering if you knew that one of Kohlberg's critics, Carol Gilligan, points out that Kohlberg's theory is based entirely on his interviews with males; that Gilligan found his work to be gender biased and that she said that by Kohlberg's scale women score lower (Level III) to men (Levels IV and V)? Of course, I note that you do note post the whole of Kohlberg's stage theory, realizing that you did not have space to flesh all of it out.

What if I decide, as a moral thinker, that all truth is indeed elastic, relative, even ephemeral? What if I choose to believe that all moral acts, for me, are my own; that I choose what is right and true and just; that I determine what is morally proper, at any given time, and that I find my moral compass within my own autonomous reason? I am sure you are fine with that, as would be Kohlberg. But would it not be the case that I am free, then, to choose to live and act according to any stage I damn well please; that since moral actions are relative, determined solely contextually by me, that I am free not only to embrace Level II, that I am right for choosing Level II, or any level; right according to Kohlberg and according to my own fiat? What if I look upon the moral landscape unencumbered by law or divine decree, and yet I choose to live according to divine decree, since no stage is ontologically better than another, since moral prescriptions are absolute for no one else but me (and I am free to dismiss them as non-absolute)?

Of course, none of this is necessarily my conviction. I am merely examining what you have offered here.

Peace and mirth!

BG

 
At 1:38 PM, Blogger Richard said...

>>>Writing laws is not Level II.

If you are writing an "external code" that you expect people to "obey" you are, by the definition you supplied, NOT fostering Level III Moral and Ethical thought. You are clearly fostering Level II thought by that activity, as the law will not reflect individual evaluation or assessment, but rather an "Obedience to External Authority". (Before you ridicule me for the analysis you might want to actually think about first.)

>>>I'm not concerned by what Conservatives think they do - only what they actually do.

I thought you were interested in whether they had a morality based on personal reflection, evaluation, empathy, and critical thought? You set yourself up as the sole arbitrator of what they're thinking based upon their behavior as that behavior appears to you??? Mighty subjective.

>>>Now the question is, how do we get you to lighten up enough not to be threatened by psychological theory?

Huh? I'm sorry, I thought I was responding to a blog post. Why the personal vindictive? I only said I thought the theory was useless, not that you were useless. I'm not a conservative anyway. I'm an atheist with libertarian tendencies if I have to label myself. Chill. I come in peace.

 
At 8:26 PM, Blogger Morgaine said...

Peregrin- I haven't found a way around it, unless we are able to get Level II's up to Level III. I have no idea how to do that, but I'm pretty sure that's what it's going to take. I wrote this to get people to help me work the problem.

KCB I know exactly what you mean. I've run into that when I participated in the God or Not Carnivals. They are so disdainful of the theists that there is no room for discussion, and I find it gets very rude. That's not productive. I hope this helps!

 
At 9:05 PM, Blogger Morgaine said...

Hello, Contratimes -

I guess you followed the link from Athana's site. I don't think you'll like much of what you find here, but let's see where we are:

Let us assume that you are a master of logic, as you suggest in your post;


I didn't and I wouldn't. I merely present myself as someone with a basic understanding of psychology and 20+ years of study in religion.

let us assume that you are not at all fundamentalistic in your thinking.

I'm not, because I'll admit I might be wrong. The atheists might be right and there's nothing. The Christians might be right and I'll be apologizing to Jesus. I have, however, studied the alternatives and settled on a belief system that I believe best serves the human psyche and our society. Others may choose differently, and that's ok with me.

How then, could you not see that your sentence, "Show me a radically Conservative Christian who isn't making money from it, and I'll show you one who either hasn't read, or didn't understand the Bible and probably knows little about its history" is not only fallacious, but clearly motivated by Level II prejudice?


There might be an exception to that statement here or there, but based on my personal experiences with fundamentalists, I believe it to be essentially true. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, if it is on point. I haven't found any, but you are welcome to share. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about all Christians. I'm talking about fundamentalists with no economic interests.

You have cast a broad, black-and-white, and condescending statement to the wind here. Where's the nuance, the subtlety? Where's the argument?


That's not the goal of this post. I've done that elsewhere, repeatedly. The point of this post is to present a theory as concisely as possible and get Progressives to understand it so we can waste less time beating our heads against a wall.


Moreover, are you also suggesting that Christians who are literate and versed in their Bibles are more fiscally adroit than their illiterate peers? What does your statement even mean?


That's not what I said. I said that those who have studied and understood it yet still advocate for it are usually people who are making money exploiting the people who haven't. I'm quite sure Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson know that the Bible is full of mistranslations, complete fallacies and has been edited and altered repeatedly. They also know that talking about that won't put money in the collection plate. They preach what they can sell, not what they know to be true.

And do you really believe, as you read my comments here, that you "might be wrong," and that I "might be right?" Do you mean to suggest that you do not have an "Us vs. Them" position with me here; that you do not have a "you-are-not-with-us-thus-you must-be-against-us" position on nearly every page of this site?

About what? About what I intended to say? Then, yes, I think I have a better grasp of what I intend to say than you. As to your other beliefs, I don't know what they are, except that you have some problem with my stating an opinion.
I won't deny having a strong point of view. The reality is that until each of us actually dies, we won't know the truth. In the mean time, we need to find a way to get along. I don't know you, so I can only infer your positions from your tone. I doubt you are sympathetic, but I don't know for sure - yet.


You've said "We are not having a clash of cultures." This sounds frightfully dogmatic to me; it seems you do see things as definitive and unarguable, even absolute.


This is a blog. I have strong opinions and state them forcefully. The difference is that I am not going to kill anyone over it, or pass a law saying you have to do things my way.

Come up with a better explanation and I'll use it. In the mean time, this model is as functional as anything else I've seen.


You even seem to treat Kohlberg's work as, well, absolute. I am wondering if you knew that one of Kohlberg's critics, Carol Gilligan, points out that Kohlberg's theory is based entirely on his interviews with males; that Gilligan found his work to be gender biased and that she said that by Kohlberg's scale women score lower (Level III) to men (Levels IV and V)? Of course, I note that you do note post the whole of Kohlberg's stage theory, realizing that you did not have space to flesh all of it out.


First, I recognize that Kohlberg's principles are a map, not the territory. Second, I have addressed the gender issue elsewhere. I don't believe it is relevant in this context. I'm using Kohlberg's model merely as an illustration, which is why I've simplified his six levels into 3. The variations within each pair are not germaine to this particular discussion.

The real question is: Why do you assume I don't know what I'm talking about?


What if I decide, as a moral thinker, that all truth is indeed elastic, relative, even ephemeral? What if I choose to believe that all moral acts, for me, are my own; that I choose what is right and true and just; that I determine what is morally proper, at any given time, and that I find my moral compass within my own autonomous reason? I am sure you are fine with that, as would be Kohlberg. But would it not be the case that I am free, then, to choose to live and act according to any stage I damn well please; that since moral actions are relative, determined solely contextually by me, that I am free not only to embrace Level II, that I am right for choosing Level II, or any level; right according to Kohlberg and according to my own fiat? What if I look upon the moral landscape unencumbered by law or divine decree, and yet I choose to live according to divine decree, since no stage is ontologically better than another, since moral prescriptions are absolute for no one else but me (and I am free to dismiss them as non-absolute)?


I am not concerned with what you choose to believe or not believe. I am concerned with how you came to believe it and how you express it.

Of course, none of this is necessarily my conviction. I am merely examining what you have offered here.

No, you're nit picking in an attempt to distract me from my goal, which is to educate Progressives as to how people perceive their moral codes. Men are fond of this game. Feminists get to play all the time. It's not new, nor is it nearly as clever as you seem to think.

Peace-

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger Morgaine said...

Hello again, Richard-

>>>Writing laws is not Level II.

If you are writing an "external code" that you expect people to "obey" you are, by the definition you supplied, NOT fostering Level III Moral and Ethical thought. You are clearly fostering Level II thought by that activity, as the law will not reflect individual evaluation or assessment, but rather an "Obedience to External Authority". (Before you ridicule me for the analysis you might want to actually think about first.)

The part that you are missing is the origin of the law that is being written. The Code in Level II is external. It comes from a source outside the individual, to which that individual attributes a measure of authority. Level II will seek to enforce the Code with laws, but those will always be a derivative of the pre-existing Code.

If the law is not derivative of an external code, which is the case you seem to be describing, then that person is acting at level III. They might be hoping to provoke a Level II response from others, and often are, but the fact that they assume the authority to originate their own Code makes it Level III.

>>>I'm not concerned by what Conservatives think they do - only what they actually do.

I thought you were interested in whether they had a morality based on personal reflection, evaluation, empathy, and critical thought? You set yourself up as the sole arbitrator of what they're thinking based upon their behavior as that behavior appears to you??? Mighty subjective.


No, I presented a useful model to get Progressives to stop trying to use logic for those who aren't functioning on that level and work the problem.

I'm not judging what they believe, I am evaluating why they believe it.

>>>Now the question is, how do we get you to lighten up enough not to be threatened by psychological theory?


Huh? I'm sorry, I thought I was responding to a blog post. Why the personal vindictive? I only said I thought the theory was useless, not that you were useless. I'm not a conservative anyway. I'm an atheist with libertarian tendencies if I have to label myself. Chill. I come in peace.


If I have misinterpreted your tone, I'm sorry. I thought you were part of the wave of Wing Nuts that found my blog this week. I do think that calling an idea useless when you don't really understand it a bit presumptuous in any case.

Peace-

 
At 11:33 PM, Blogger Morgaine said...

Morgaine,

I am sorry you feel antagonized. I have not attacked you, nor have I assumed anything about your competence. Perhaps you missed my qualifiers in my comment (bold added for clarity):

You even seem to treat Kohlberg's work as, well, absolute. I am wondering if you knew that one of Kohlberg's critics, Carol Gilligan, points out that Kohlberg's theory is based entirely on his interviews with males; that Gilligan found his work to be gender biased and that she said that by Kohlberg's scale women score lower (Level III) to men (Levels IV and V)? Of course, I note that you do note post the whole of Kohlberg's stage theory, realizing that you did not have space to flesh all of it out.

As for this being a male game, I am sad that you should think so. Where, pray tell, is the game? I've merely directly addressed the words you put on a blog, and I've done so without insinuation, without insult, without invective. I have stayed on topic; I have followed your line of reasoning. What, do you think I am at play here? This is, for me, serious business; a matter of spiritual life and death. One of us is right; or both of us are wrong. I am not of the mind that both of us are right, and thus, I believe the issues here are more than a football for me to kick about: they are the issues that matter most to me. You think me nit-picking? Egads, you should be glad that I haven't resorted to that.

I disagree with your characterization of fundamentalists as being unable to admit they are wrong. You defined yourself as NOT being a fundamentalist by virtue of your admitting your fallibility. But I know all sorts of progressives who believe they are infallible; and I know all sorts of fundamentalists who believe they are wrong about everything; in fact, that is why they are fundamentalists, committed to foundational ideas they deem to come from outside of themselves, given by the very cosmos as anchors for certitude. But I have never met anyone who does not hold a certain set of beliefs that are foundational and assumed; beliefs that are axiomatic. Everyone I've known is a fundamentalist of some sort, accepting truths the veracity of which they did not ascertain for themselves, submitting to all kinds of knowledge from those deemed authoritative. No one has ever been an exception to that rule.

Don't you see that you weaken your cause when you refer to anyone as a Wing Nut (ie. "I thought you were part of the wave of Wing Nuts that found my blog this week")? What does that even mean? Do you mean that you see yourself as a stillpoint of sanity to which sociopaths are drawn? Seriously, I do not know what you mean here. But even if I did, it strikes me as mean-spirited and unloving. I am not telling you that you can't speak thusly; nor am I uncomfortable with you expressing yourself that way (it takes a lot to make me uncomfortable). It is just unkind, I think.

You have strong opinions here. Trust me when I say that if your worldview is the best and truest one, then that is a beautiful thing. You have every reason to zealously guard and promote your view of the world, of the way things should be. I am sure that if you're certain about your beliefs then you would not mind any challenge brought your way. But if your views are wrong, then I have a responsibility to challenge them with reason, with good reason.

You should toss the Kohlberg.

Peace and mirth!

Bill Gnade

 
At 12:18 AM, Blogger Morgaine said...

I was trying to publish bill's comment above, but blogger flipped out, so I copied it and posted it myself. This post is my response to him.


As for this being a male game, I am sad that you should think so. Where, pray tell, is the game? I've merely directly addressed the words you put on a blog, and I've done so without insinuation, without insult, without invective. I have stayed on topic; I have followed your line of reasoning. What, do you think I am at play here?


It is a common technique for men who are hostile to women to come to our sites and tell us how to behave and try to intimidate us.

I've had to delete a lot of abusive comments this week because of really intense personal attacks.
Feminist blogs are often targets for Men's Rights Activists and the like, so posts from men are received with some trepidation. Sorry if it isn't warranted in your case, but you still seem to be trying to tell me how to act, instead of addressing the flaws in the argument.

This is, for me, serious business; a matter of spiritual life and death. One of us is right; or both of us are wrong. I am not of the mind that both of us are right, and thus, I believe the issues here are more than a football for me to kick about:

But are you able to allow for the possibility that you might be wrong about that?

This is not about right and wrong. It is about autonomy. It is about my right to choose my beliefs and live by them without unreasonable interference from anyone else.

they are the issues that matter most to me.

Well, then we have that in common.

You think me nit-picking? Egads, you should be glad that I haven't resorted to that.

See, you've just implied that the post was rife with things to pick at. It was an attempt to take a subject I have written about at length and make it short and sweet. I believe that this model is the key to making progress in dealing with the political divide in this country and I really want people to understand it. They don't have to agree with it, just understand what it means.


I disagree with your characterization of fundamentalists as being unable to admit they are wrong. You defined yourself as NOT being a fundamentalist by virtue of your admitting your fallibility. But I know all sorts of progressives who believe they are infallible; and I know all sorts of fundamentalists who believe they are wrong about everything; in fact, that is why they are fundamentalists, committed to foundational ideas they deem to come from outside of themselves, given by the very cosmos as anchors for certitude. But I have never met anyone who does not hold a certain set of beliefs that are foundational and assumed; beliefs that are axiomatic. Everyone I've known is a fundamentalist of some sort, accepting truths the veracity of which they did not ascertain for themselves, submitting to all kinds of knowledge from those deemed authoritative. No one has ever been an exception to that rule.


OK, if you take this seriously, then let's talk seriously. This is one post in 3 years worth of posts. It was intended to be short and to the point. I wasn't trying to change anyone's beliefs, just explain their relationship to them.

I think I see the problem. I am not talking about personal fallability. I am talking about fallability of the Code. You may believe that the Bible or Darwin or the Koran is correct; but can you entertain the thought that the Code that you follow might be wrong?

I agree that there are plenty of Progressive Level II's and that not all Conservatives are at that level. People aren't that simple.

I believe that Fundamentalism is dangerous, but when I say fundamentalism, I don't mean a particular religion. I mean a particular acceptance of an external idea of morality seen as perfect and above question. It doesn't matter if the belief is Islam, Darwinsim, patriotism, or team loyalty. It's the idea that "it" is right and anything that contradicts "it" is dangerous or subversive.

Don't you see that you weaken your cause when you refer to anyone as a Wing Nut (ie. "I thought you were part of the wave of Wing Nuts that found my blog this week")? What does that even mean?

That means that I got a lot of comments from abusive, misogynistic, hateful people this week who cursed at me and called me names. Wing Nut is commonly used in the blogosphere, and I won't apologize for using it. It is quite accurate in describing a particularly dangerous Right Wing activist and they are destroying this country.

Do you mean that you see yourself as a stillpoint of sanity to which sociopaths are drawn?

Absolutely not. I don't believe I said anything to that effect.

Seriously, I do not know what you mean here. But even if I did, it strikes me as mean-spirited and unloving.

Do you understand that women are targeted in the blogosphere just as they are in real life, by men who want to dominate their thoughts and activities?

I am not telling you that you can't speak thusly; nor am I uncomfortable with you expressing yourself that way (it takes a lot to make me uncomfortable). It is just unkind, I think.

You can think that, if you like, but again, you are coming into a woman's space and criticizing my behavior. It's patronizing.

You have strong opinions here. Trust me when I say that if your worldview is the best and truest one, then that is a beautiful thing. You have every reason to zealously guard and promote your view of the world, of the way things should be.

Again, you are attributing things to me that I did not say. We all believe we are right. Not all of us will allow that some other Code might be right, too, or that our Code might be wrong.


I am sure that if you're certain about your beliefs then you would not mind any challenge brought your way. But if your views are wrong, then I have a responsibility to challenge them with reason, with good reason.

Why do you assume that you are responsible for correcting me? That's the problem I'm trying to address. You do not have a responsibility for correcting anyone else.

It is your responsibility to choose your own behavior, and allow others to choose theirs within the framework of the Constitution.


You should toss the Kohlberg.


Why? It's a useful model.
And again, why are you telling me what I should do? You aren't my father.

If the discussion is life or death to you, say so and let people know you aren't just being contrary. I still don't know what you find objectionable in Kohlberg. I don't know what you believe would be more accurate. After 3 posts, you tell me this is important. Tell me why and how instead of dismissing the idea without examination.

 
At 6:21 PM, Blogger contratimes said...

Ms. Morgaine,

Thank you for your candor. I am not here to harass or hurt. There is nothing remotely ad hominem about my posts. I know you see that.

Now, let me defend myself. I have not told you to get rid of Kohlberg, only that you should. Please, do what you want. I have defended your right to speak freely. Using Kohlberg is part of that speech.

I think I pretty thoroughly showed in my first post why Kohlberg does not work: if I am at Level III (your abridged Level III), then it is my right to be at Level I or II. Since that is the case, Kohlberg's model is untrustworthy, for everyone at Level I may have chosen that level in Level III autonomy. Since you and I agree that Level III is the level wherein each of us defines morality for ourselves, independent of outside codes, then it follows that Levels I and II are permissible places: Level III folks can go anywhere they deem consistent with their autonomy. Plus, Kohlberg cannot show how a person arrives at any level. Hence, it is not very helpful. I even think his model is invalid.

Now, I may have corrected you (though I am not saying I have). But I would suggest (this is but a suggestion) that you should not take my words personally: I have challenged mere words on a page; words that are very distinct from you. Moreover, please note that you have several times corrected me: you've even chided me for correcting you, which I assume I was incorrect for doing. (You wrote: You do not have a responsibility for correcting anyone else, which is itself a correction.) And this is not mere semantics; and surely it is not an advanced level of "the game." I, like you, long for clarity. Please, do not take umbrage with me unjustly. I am no stronger than any broken man.

What does it really help if I admit that I might be wrong, particularly when you have said that we all think we are right? Look, I do think the Bible could be wrong; no one knows the Bible's problems better than I. I am not talking about the Bible when I speak of fundamentalism: I am talking about everyone being a fundamentalist, accepting on faith truths and knowledge the veracity of which they did not determine for themselves. For instance, most of us believe the speed of light is finite without ever measuring it ourselves: We accept this in deference to an authority to which we submit.

I try to submit to reason; I also try to submit to grace and love. Sometimes, I am afraid, these conflict with each other: love is not always rational, reason is not always gracious. Forgive me if I've come across as testerone-laced. I can assure you, this is not about machismo.

Yes, Morgaine, I know too well how women are victimized. You are not being victimized here, though perhaps your words, which are merely typed digital figures, have been victimized; but not because they are yours or that they are female, but because they are words, words we all share.

Forgive me if I've been a rude, ingracious guest in your home. Perhaps I should have knocked first, but I thought the sign said that all were welcome.

Peace to you, and may you know all the best that life has to offer,

Bill Gnade
(one of the good men)

 
At 8:58 PM, Blogger Morgaine said...

Bill, you really still don't seem to understand Kohlberg. It's not about "having a right to be Level I or II." That concept within this concept is nonsense. It's a simple matter of whether a person accepts what they have been given as true, or whether the person is able to question accepted rules. It's not about choice - just recognizing that choice exists puts a person at Level III. It's about process.

What does it really help if I admit that I might be wrong, particularly when you have said that we all think we are right? Look, I do think the Bible could be wrong; no one knows the Bible's problems better than I.

There are many people who believe the Bible is the literal word of "God." That is Level II. If you are able to look at it critically, that is Level III.


I am not talking about the Bible when I speak of fundamentalism:


Nor am I unless I specify Fundamentalist Christianity.


I am talking about everyone being a fundamentalist, accepting on faith truths and knowledge the veracity of which they did not determine for themselves. For instance, most of us believe the speed of light is finite without ever measuring it ourselves: We accept this in deference to an authority to which we submit.

No, we accept this because proof has been offered and we have no basis with which to contradict it. There are many scientific theories that are flawed and incomplete. That isn't the point.

In order for that acceptance to be fundamentalism, it would require adherence to it not only in the absence of proof, but in contradiction of proof.

The point is whether you can conceive of a different way of interpreting a Code of ethics. I'm hammering this concept because until people can see it, they will continue to kill over concepts that have no objective basis in fact, and oppress others who would choose to do differently. I don't care if what you believe can be proven; I care that you acknowledge that there is not proof, and therefore will not attempt to enforce that code as if it were fact. It's ok to think that it is fact, but not to act as if it is to the extent that you restrict any behavior but your own.

 
At 10:00 PM, Blogger Steven Horwitz said...

To be honest, your analysis really is Level II. You seem totally incapable of imagining that someone on the Right could engage in Level III thinking. You even single out the American Left for Level III and, by implication, claim the Right can't do that. You also seem to equate the "Right" with Christian conservatives. And where are the libertarians like me? We are neither left nor right, but I think quite capable of Level III thinking.

It's simplistic insulting stuff like this that leads the Right to say that the Left is intolerant.

 
At 10:22 PM, Blogger Morgaine said...

That's not true at all, and I never said that. I'm addressing a specific problem one group is having with another group. I'm not likely to worry about seeming intolerant when Conservative Christian leaders have pledged to drive me out of America.

 
At 12:14 PM, Blogger contratimes said...

Morgaine,

I want you to know that I will stand in anyone's way who has announced he, or she, will drive you out of America. Who has done this?

Yes, Kohlberg is ESSENTIALLY about choice; otherwise there is no moral autonomy. I have stated quite clearly that there is no reason -- inherent in either the world or Kohlberg's theory -- that a Level III person cannot freely choose to be Level II or Level I. I can survey the landscape; I can choose to accept moral anarchy, and yet, in a fit of fancy decide that I will best operate as a Level I(I) person, embracing static, pre-digested moral principles. It is this that makes me believe Kohlberg works only superficially. He may help us on a journey, like a sketch drawn from second-hand memory, but a map would be far better. I am not saying that Kohlberg says I have a "right" to anything. I am saying that if I, as a Level III person, am autonomous, then Kohlberg's theory concedes that I have the right to decide my own moral path. Hence, when he interviews me to collect data to support (or disprove) his hypothesis, I answer his questions in a manner that suggests I've never been to Level III, when, in fact, I have.

I said that there are all sorts of things people believe that they have not ever tested for themselves, offering up the speed of light as example. You replied, "we accept this [scientific theories] because proof has been offered and we have no basis with which to contradict it. There are many scientific theories that are flawed and incomplete. That isn't the point." But it is, in my opinion, very much the point. I know that theories are incomplete and flawed (like Kohlberg's), or so I am told. But I have not tested them myself; I have not admitted that they might be wrong; I have not ever spent a second questioning their veracity. Odd, then, that it is clear that light's speed might not be a constant; that oil might not be a fossil fuel; that low-fat diets for women might not prevent cancer, or so state many of the most recent articles. In short, we submit to authorities of all kinds daily without ever being the intellectual equivalent of Kohlberg's morally-autonomous Level III. Plus, your suggestion that contradictory evidence trumps a theory's veracity is also not something I've (perhaps) tested for myself. It is an assertion that is presented without evidence at all. How DO we know what we claim to know?

As for the Bible's accuracy, surely it is not irrational to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. For he either did or he did not; his alleged resurrection is consistent with the law of non-contradiction. Moreover, should we have had the opportunity, nothing in that claim would've precluded us from placing science's brightest minds and sharpest tools in Jesus' tomb. There is nothing contra-scientific or irrational to the essential Christian claim; it is in theory testable.

My point is not to say that the Bible is true, nor is it to defend those who unquestioningly accept it. But few are there that believe the Bible to be the "literal" word of God, very few.† It is the Koran that is deemed to be a direct revelation to Muhammad: The Koran is the VERY words of God. Christianity has always held that the Bible is the word of men (and women) that contains the word of God; that no language on this planet is perfect and hence cannot fully express God's (uttered) word. In fact, Christians believe there is something compelling to the idea that so many authors could nonetheless point toward a quite similar mystery; in Islam (and Buddhism) really only one person points the way. Hence, it is a straw man fallacy to dismiss Christianity due to the few (and they are few) literalists out there. Again, it is Islam that is literalistic: Allah speaks Arabic. †[I know that many Christian Articles of Faith assert the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God; but they do not mean, at least most don't, that the Bible is literally the words of God. That this distinction is even made suggests a higher level of thinking than those few literalists who believe God actually said the Bible's words.]

Never will I defend fundamentalism as a final intellectual frontier, though I might fight for its right to exist. However, I will also challenge those who do not see their own penchant for fundamentalistic (irreducible, final) thought. But I think that you and I agree here: that there IS a way of using the mind that is better than other ways. My conviction is that if I have a privileged point of view, that such privilege comes at a price, namely, that I am to share my thoughts with love, grace, tolerance and infinite patience; that I am to be a guide and not a judge; that my own certitude must never make another person feel less worthy; or that my own doubts, which are many, must become normative for others.

Peace to you!!

Bill Gnade

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home