Slashdot Mirror

This line of discussion started with morals. So far you've avoided that topic with the single exception of "I've been playing Homefront, and it reminds me why pacifism is an morally corrupt philosophy." We seem to be just trading words and not getting anywhere. So perhaps, if you're at all interested in expanding moral philosophy beyond a cartoon war game, you'd consider checking out Kohlberg's work on moral development. Hint: believing your (or any country's) government is always right is obedience to authority, a child's level of morality.

And even if you do believe in God, what are the chances you've chosen the right one to believe in?

That isn't actually a very strong argument against taking a position. Suppose I put twenty boxes in front of you and told you that one of them contained a good cheque for $1,000,000 and the others contained nothing. You can open any one, and keep the contents. What are the changes of picking the right one? Not great. What reason is there for choosing one box over another? Not much: maybe hunch, maybe try to interpret my facial expressions. One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.

Anyway, people at stages 5 and 6 of Fowler's model of faith development don't really make a choice between different faith traditions (so your argument about inheriting the religion of their parents doesn't apply to them, although they may inherit some ways of expressing that faith). In terms of the box game, these people recognise the nature of the game, don't put any faith in their ability to choose well, but simply enjoy the act of opening the box that they do.

While I agree with your principle, the Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development explain why most people do not understand the argument you just made.

Easier said than done.... and thats Honest.

Probably depends on which stage of moral development (sensu KOHLBERG) society tries to 'enforce'.

Summary
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.
At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.
At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

Probably not stage 6 which would perhaps render your image, more like 3 or 4 if you are an optimist, 1 if you are a cynic (and look at sheeple, could not resist).

CC.

I can't really see how this is different from what we have now.

Since you cannot take in information without interpretation, you must in fact interpret the bible. Literalists try to interpret as little as they can, but even they wind up in severe disagreements about what the bible says, or which translation is correct.

As to being told to kill: God told people they should kill in the bible. Why shouldn't that happen today? And frankly, if you are a true believer, you shouldn't care what society says is right, you ought to listen to what God tells you is right. There are plenty of examples in the bible where the prevailing belief is wrong, and God tells a small sub group what the right thing to do is.

A better model for knowing what action is moral is the Kohlberg scale, it frees you from having to worry about whether your society or your religion has gotten things quite right in their understanding of what God wants.

The law (society's) exists to offer combined force to enforce behaviours we deem preferable as a group. God's law offers even greater force to enforce his desired behaviours. As a person, you typically decide which one you will give preference if they are in conflict. Supposing you choose God's law as your highest preference: if God tells you to kill, you better obey, and you should do so sure in the knowledge that God will reward you for doing so, and you should do so without fear of society's punishment, because presumably you have confidence that God's threat is so much greater.

The real problem, which I think your post is pointing out, is that there is no way to trust any particular religion's teachings as being directly connected to God's law. Better to either trust a personal connection with God, or perhaps better yet to go with society's law, or maybe even the best to get a deep understanding of the Kohlberg stages.

A good summary of the Kohlberg stages for anyone who doesn't know what they are:
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

... about it.

Ask yourselves: Are software patents a good thing?

Do not be tempted to say: "Yes, if used against M$"

It is a question of moral judgement.

Kohlberg 1

Kohlberg 2

CC.

P.S.: Now I wonder what happens this time - fucking stupid moderators!

... about it.

Ask yourselves: Are software patents a good thing?

Do not be tempted to say: "Yes, if used against M$"

It is a question of moral judgement.

Kohlberg 1
Kohlberg 2


CC.

P.S.: Note for moderators: Offtopic, because you are stupid.