The meaning of life

[emprworm]

Kohlberg's Moral Development theory. We develop morals as humans! Not as thiests or athiests

KOHLBERG'S MORAL STAGES

Kolberg's theory specifies six stages of moral development, arranged in three levels.

Level I: Preconventional/Premoral

Moral values reside in external, quasi-physical events, or in bad acts. The child is responsive to rules and evaluative labels, but views them in terms of pleasant or unpleasant consequences of actions, or in terms of the physical power of those who impose the rules.

Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation

Egocentric deference to superior power or prestige, or a trouble-avoiding set.

Objective responsibility.

Stage 2: Naively egoistic orientation

Right action is that which is instrumental in satisfying the self's needs and occasionally others'.

Relativism of values to each actor's needs and perspectives.

Naive egalitarianism,orientation to exchange and reciprocity.

Level II: Conventional/Role Conformity

Moral values reside in performing the right role, in maintaining the conventional order and expectancies of others as a value in its own right.

Stage 3: Good-boy/good-girl orientation

Orientation to approval, to pleasing and helping others.

Conformity to stereotypical images of majority or natural role behavior.

Action is evaluated in terms of intentions.

Stage 4: Authority and social-order-maintaining orientation

Orientation to "doing duty" and to showing respect for authority and maintaining the given social order or its own sake.

Regard for earned expectations of others.

Differentiates actions out of a sense of obligation to rules from actions for generally "nice" or natural motives.

Level III: Postconventional/Self-Accepted Moral Principles

Morality is defined in terms of conformity to shared standards,rights, or duties apart from supporting authority. The standards conformed to are internal, and action-decisions are based on an inner process of thought and judgement concerning right and wrong.

Stage 5: Contractual/legalistic orientation

Norms of right and wrong are defined in terms of laws or institutionalized rules which seem to have a rational basis.

When conflict arises between individual needs and law or contract, though sympathetic to the former, the individual believes the latter must prevail because of its greater functional rationality for society, the majority will and welfare.

Stage 6: The morality of individual principles of conscience

Orientation not only toward existing social rules, but also toward the conscience as a directing agent, mutual trust and respect, and principles of moral choice involving logical universalities and consistency.

Action is controlled by internalized ideals that exert a pressure to act accordingly regardless of the reactions of others in the immediate environment.

If one acts otherwise, self-condemnation and guilt result.

None of this says anything about slavery being wrong for any time period other than right now. Kohlberg is unable to answer the question. So let me ask you: was 19th century slavery wrong at the time it occured and will it always be wrong? Could slavery ever become right? If you think Kohlbergs theory answers that, please enlighten me and show me which part of the theory as I quoted above answers that.

[Inoculator9]

Read it again. Of course it doesn't directly refer to slavery. And I don't appreciate your sarcasm. Feelings weren't hurt, but you did said that atheists are unethical.

[emprworm]

Innoculator, cut it with the vagueness. I read it again, kindly point out specifically where this code can be used as grounds for saying slavery was wrong when it occured and will always be wrong.

It just doesn't allow for that. So I ask you again, IF (note the word IF, ok?) ...

IF you believe that slavery was wrong and will always be wrong, on what basis can you say that?

The question is absolutely, unequivicably, totally, and unilaterally 100% valid. If you want to dodge the question and keep being offended, fine. But I hope that when you lie down and go to sleep tonight, you think about it. I am not saying you have no morals, not at all. You misread what I say. I am saying what is your SOURCE for morals. How can you as an atheist call another mans actions in another society wrong? Ask yourself tonight "where do my moral values come from?"

If your values come from Kohlberg's theory, then YOU read it again. Show me where in that theory he explains that one can make moral judgments on actions approved of in past societies (such as slavery) and where one can say right now that such actions (such as slavery) will always be wrong.

[Inoculator9]

I don't base my morals on Kohlberg's theory. Also I see where your coming from. But all atheists don't prescribe to Kohlberg's theory. Your original question didn't mention Kohlberg. If your asking about Kohlberg, I suppose I agree. But that depends on the individuals interpretation. For your original question, atheists base their morals on whatever they want, their opinions on slavery depends on the individual person.

[emprworm]

my original question was not meant to say atheists dont have morals. On the contrary, I am saying to the atheist "You have morals. So where do they come from?"

So, where do they come from? And does your source for morals allow you to condemn slavery in past societies and future societies? If the answer to that is yes, then please explain how your source of morals allows you to do that?

[Acriku]

Thanks for pasting the theory...cough :) Anyways, generally it states that as we grow, our morals grow with us. Not all people progress to the formal stage, but there are people who do. And this is done psychologically, not necessarily religiously. The theory isn't of course proven beyond all doubt as everything is relative, but it fits in a lot of situations. Although I don't agree in some points of his theory, I agree generally. So don't base the theory on what I believe, even if you aren't.

I have morals, where do I get them from? Let's see, psychological growth, a personal feeling of what is right or wrong - basically I do whatever I can to make people happy within my ability as a reflex (a girl/boy drops her/his book I go down to pick it up). Besides all that, how the hell am I suppose to know? We aren't experts of the brain, the mind, we can never be certain.

[DjCiD]

you did implie to me that i should be scared by saying it will be too late for me if "god" appears. :-[

By the way we are animals. Just more advanced versions of chimpanzees. 8)

I have a great hypothetical question which in 10 years won't be hypothetical but anyway here go's. Your wife and you are expecting and upon a blood test you find out that your child has Down Syndrome. You have two options, one to see the geneticist and get him to rectify the problem or decide against it as it is wrong in the eyes of god???

I'm sorry you thought I implied you should be scared, that was not intended. It's up to you how you see eternity, and the simply phrase "it will be to late" wasn't ment to scare you just to let you know your time will be up... as in no chance to say "oh im sorry i guess i do believe in you now that you are standing in front of me as proof".

You may be a descendant of a monkey , but I'm not...

on the other half of your post

When my wife was pregnate with my son, a test came back that should the signs of Spina Bifida: means cleft spine, which is an incomplete closure in the spinal column.

I can give you a few links if you dont know about Spinal Bifida or Neural tube defects (NTDs). But to answer your question, No my wife and I decided not to see the specialist about it nor have an amniocentesis or any other test done. We left it as it was, not interfearing with Gods creation. In 10 years if a similar situation arises, expect the same action.

[emprworm]

Anyways, generally it states that as we grow, our morals grow with us

which is why this theory is unable to condemn slavery of the 19th century. It was a whole different society. Your theory is fully limited to the society in which the populace is contained. You have no moral basis to look outside of your society and say that "so and so" is wrong in HIS society. Therefore, I see no logical way for you to claim that slavery was wrong at the time, or that it might not one day be right. All you can do is say that slavery is wrong right now in your particular society. All governments of the entire world accepted slavery as morally ok. According to moral reletavism, this is perfectly acceptable. An atheist growing up in the 18th century according to Kohlberg would start developing the morality of the society around him. He would learn what is right and wrong from his society, which of course teaches that slavery is right. Therefore Kohlberg's morality is a weak morality because it would be completely unable to stop or condemn slavery. When you think about what ended slavery, and study just what it took to end a worldwide institution that the majority of the whole world accepted (including african societies that actually sold their own people into slavery)- when you think about what it took to step OUTSIDE of all those societies and condemn something that had existed for 10,000 years of recorded human history, then you will realize the only objective source for morality. If you think atheism could have ended slavery, o do please explain how.

[Edric O]

Here is one for you Edrico. What did your parents do??? Your dad found the best woman that he could and got her pregant unless you were an unwanted pregnacy.

Ever heard of a little thing called LOVE, Repoman? My parents married and had me because they were IN LOVE, not because they wanted to pass on their genetic legacy... ::)

And if sex is your purpose in life, you are truly a sad person.

By the way we are animals. Just more advanced versions of chimpanzees.

Oh, so you admit to being an ape? ::)

Like I said, don't expect me to treat you like an intelligent human being.

20 years ago IVF was "wrong" in the majority of world opinion. Now it is a commonly accepted practice. Genetic manipulation is "wrong" in the majority of world opinion. In 20 years it too will be commonly accepted practice, If you can't see that you are being short sighted.

For the sake of humanity, I hope you are wrong. If genetic manipulation becomes common practice... let's just say we could call the Earth "Tleilaxu Prime". Ruled by nazi eugenists.

Do you WANT to bow to your fuhrer? ::)

[Repoman]

Oh, so you admit to being an ape? ::)

Like I said, don't expect me to treat you like an intelligent human being.

If you want me to treat you like an intelligent human being then start posting like an intelligent human and not like a 12 year old child.

I asked a simple question, was it too complex for you??

Love, in my opinion is when you think that you are unbelievably lucky to have a chance at being with this woman. It wouldn't matter if a girl with Tea' Leoni body and Stephen Hawkin's brain put the hard word on me as i love my girlfriend. If you think this about your girlfriend then i believe you are in love. So as i said before your parents did do this unless they are not in love.

You are automatically assuming that genetic manipulation will be used against society, isn't that a little bit pessimistic. There will be occurances of misuse thoughout the future but positive aspects far outweigh the negative aspects. People thought the exact same thing about IVF.

Emp, I'm glad to see that you can have an intelligent conversation as i am quite enjoying this thread. You're right when you say that the question is a no brainer. Pity DJ can't see that or even worse the majority of the world.

In response to your question, I would seperate the twins as unfortantly they have suffered a unfortantant mutation. The quality of life for the two of them would be so restricted it would be unfair to them to keep them in that state. The only way to solve this is to encourage unfetted research into genetics to stop it from happening in the first place which brings us essentially back to the question i asked. A genetic test would have seen this coming and it could have been solved before it actually happened.

DJ, Don't take this the wrong way as what I am about to say probably will be taken the wrong way. I didn't relise how close to home for you my question was and i appreciate your openness. From your post, i'm assuming that your son has Spina bifida. There is a very big chance that in the future your son will not won't anything to do with you because of the decision that you and your wife took. In 20 years when religion's market share will have dropped substantially, people will start to see the incredibly stupid actions that people took in the past because of religion. What you have done has deneyed your son the chance as a fully functional human being. If he grows up intelligent enough to see that you deneyed a chance at a normal life because of your beliefs rather than your prime instinct of protecting your children at all costs he probably won't want anything to do with you. Could you blame him for that?

Your decision could have ramifications that go on for more than just your lifetime. Lets say that you decided to help your son and he led a normal life, married, had a child and that child saved the human race from extinction. Religion has once again caused untold damge to the world.

DJ and emp thanks for your answers

Still looking forward to Edrico and Dude's answers

[DjCiD]

no repoman, my son does not have spinal bifida. the test showed signs... but he was born without it. It was thru faith and prayer that lead us to the decision not to do anything. And he was born without spinal bifida.

If we had to do it over again we would make the same choice...

now ponder this... what if we did go ahead and have a Dr look at it and end up messing around and making matters worse...

My wife is expecting our third child and if the same situation arouses, We will rely upon our Faith and prayer again to see what to do.

[Devastator_Mech]

Are you really that religious?

[Dude_Doc]

It's funny, about what Repoman said before, it sounds like the life from your perspective (no offence!) looks like a robots:

1. Mission One: Find acceptable genetic human female.

2. Mission Two: Marry it.

3. Mission Three: Breed with it.

Missions accomplished. Life accomplished. End of life. Self destruction.

No... So if you fall in love, is that because you "feel" that this could be the goal of Mission One? No, I don't see the world that way. Besides, if you don't believe in God, fine, I won't convert or stop you from nothing. But if another person has faith, then let him be. Never accuse someone of being stupid because he believes in something.

[Devastator_Mech]

Life is actually supposed to be a mission, but as time goes by, people's mission is starting to vary.

[nampigai]

the meaning seems to be to put other humans and creatures through as much missery as possible

[Acriku]

Full congratulations with your son Dj :)

Empr, the slaveholders were products of their society, and as we all are. If I went back in time to 1840's and saw slavery everywhere, I would be appalled becuase I am a product of a different society. The fully religious held slaves, as did athiests, my point is that you should not look upon ourselves as religious or not, but look upon ourselves as human beings. Christians themselves held slaves and had the gall to still go to church and preach in His name! So it does not matter where you be a thiest or an athiest, what does matter is the morality evolving with society.

Edric, that's what (though not exactly) people thought when they first introduced tv, which was that we would become slaves to the tv, but we didn't because childish fears never hold! Just as the childish fear that we will all become as you say just because (oh lordy lord!) genetic manipulation isn't looked at as religious heresy.

Dj, we did not come from monkeys, we came from a lesser species that evolved into monkey path and human path, maybe more paths.

Dudedoc, it is our instinctual survival that urges us to couple with the best female of our species. That would allow the optimum breeding for you and that female. But since we have evolved to the point that that doesn't matter, we push our instincts down further and further. So now we are able to live our lives with a physically-incapable(very fat), ovary-less, sorry excuse for a female and may never have the urge to couple with a better specimen.

[Dante]

That's it, religion overload....

I am NOT getting involved this time. Kick the stuffing out of each other if you must, I'm leaving you to it. Goodbye.

[emprworm]

The fully religious held slaves, as did athiests, my point is that you should not look upon ourselves as religious or not, but look upon ourselves as human beings. Christians themselves held slaves and had the gall to still go to church and preach in His name!

i will not dispute that religious people held slaves. There are 13 major world religions of varying moral codes. In a society where slavery is condoned, it is impossible for moral relativism (hence atheism) to objectively condemn it. A moral relativist has no place in telling greater society or really anyone for that matter, what is right and wrong. A moral relativist can only truly speak for himself. Therefore, moral relativism in a slave culture has no ability to objectively condemn the practice as immoral.

Regarding religion: There are 6 possible world views a human might have:

Monotheism

Atheism

Polytheism

Pantheism

Panentheism

Deism

There are 13 religions of the world:

Baha

[The_Sadukar]

Emperorworm, (my I use you full name ;)) the way see it there are no moral, there are 3 basic moral codes, the Humanist/Theist, who have a moral as you have, more or less, then there are the surviver who has a primitive sense of honour, but mostly thinks of his own survival, at last there are the economist, who does not have have a moral form your point of wiew, who only thinks in profit (think ordos)

[Inoculator9]

In response to emprworm, in the eyes of the slavers it wasn't. The idea of evolution played in their thoughts (subconciously perhaps) making them believe that africans (the most common slave's race) were only slightly past monkies. They probably knew the bible forbaid slavery, but saw slaves as animals. In the bible animals are killed and used for work.

[Zopwx2]

reliogen: as in a bunch of people telling you how to worship and asking for money is bull crap. Believe what ever you want to believe in. you dont have to join any churchs or mosques or synagoges or public restroom behind the denny's. Zoroastarianism: good words, good thoughts, good deeds. THE end

[Acriku]

Empr, are you saying the christians holding slaves were "less" of a christian than you? They interpreted the bible a different way, maybe your interpretation is wrong and they were right? Maybe God condones slavery? Maybe he doesn't want us to know and lets us speculate upon it? By the way, not that you are wrong, could you site evidence to prove that Judaism and Christianity are both against slavery?

Where does rationalism come in? It's sort of like deism, but very different. E.g. rationalists believe for the search of truth using logic and reason. Deists believe that God made all the laws for us to find them out, etc.

Empr, christians had a big and powerful dude dangling the gates of hell before them scaring them into doing good, so it may have been an act of fear. You don't really know. You can't say all quakers were against slavery, because slavery was common in the north as well, so who knows. Everyone from that time period is dead, so it's kind of hard to prove either way.

Something I missed? Hey, how about this: screw your religion if you think I "missed" something due to my undoubted ignorance of christianity and its powerful, Oh Mighty Lord, words. You seem to have missed something about humanity: we all are evil, the veil of christianity doesn't shield it nor retract it.

[Devastator_Mech]

What the hell is wrong with you?

[Inoculator9]

Where did that come from?

[The_Sadukar]

Just my words, Inoculator9, anyway strange