Kohlberg's stages of moral development

[scythe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%2 ... evelopment

I've always found this kind of interesting. I'm not really sure what to think of it.

On one hand, I like to think it's a good thing to act ethically as dictated by my own perception* of ethics. On the other hand, it seems like a world full of "stage six" reasoners would end with problems when people's perspectives (inevitably? Who knows?) clashed, unless you can find what Yudkowsky called a universally compelling argument, or some intrinsic property of most human minds (compassion? surely you jest!) could act to prevent this.

Kant with the Categorical Imperative seems to have had kind of a clever approach to the whole thing, but I'm really not sure where I stand, or even where I want to stand. I think I need to read Kant instead of just looking at summaries, but the guy was goddamn long-winded.

*(in the sense that we all act according to our own perception of whatever it is we act upon, not in the sense that I imagine myself to dictate the laws of the Universe)

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't see how Instrumental Egoism necessarily means that Heinz should steal the medicine, exactly. The whole idea behind principled egoism is that you shouldn't live your own life for others. nor they for you. Yet this staging of moral development seems to indicate that an egoist would not consider somebody else's property or achievement. Obviously, this is Objectivist motivated because I'm reading Atlas Shrugged. A rational philosophically rooted egoist understands that, while pity shouldn't be a negotiation tactic in order to acquire this medicine, neither should thievery or subversion of this man's earned right.

But maybe this is the difference between Randian philosophy and the more direct Egoism portrayed here. Obviously, this is not a criticism of the theory, that I'll have to read more about before I understand it.

EDIT: Wait, I just read that the interpretations of that case are not what is important, but the reasoning behind those interpretations. :P

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I have two things to contribute. I'm not sure where you intended this conversation to go, so I'll say both:

I read a book about Antisocial Personality Disorder (pretty sure it was Unmasking the Psychopath, or something with a similar title) that opposed a "traditional" view that people diagnosed with APD were cunning, immoral manipulators, and asserted that they were instead morally "retarded" in that they never developed past the second stage. Hanlon's Razor, etc. They're not masterminds, but smart and experienced six-year olds in convincing grown-up costumes.

I appreciate the value of living in a society in which everyone acts to maximize benefit to the entire community, but I realize also that my failure (or choice) to make that a priority does not meaningfully influence others' decisions to do so. So it seems to me that the "smart" play is to encourage everyone to act for the benefit of the community while you personally act to maximize your own benefit, society be damned. Obviously, maintaining the perception that your are acting for the "greater good" will factor into that, but your behavior will probably be quite different when nobody's watching.

[scythe]

I don't see how Instrumental Egoism necessarily means that Heinz should steal the medicine, exactly. The whole idea behind principled egoism is that you shouldn't live your own life for others. nor they for you. Yet this staging of moral development seems to indicate that an egoist would not consider somebody else's property or achievement. Obviously, this is Objectivist motivated because I'm reading Atlas Shrugged. A rational philosophically rooted egoist understands that, while pity shouldn't be a negotiation tactic in order to acquire this medicine, neither should thievery or subversion of this man's earned right.

But maybe this is the difference between Randian philosophy and the more direct Egoism portrayed here. Obviously, this is not a criticism of the theory, that I'll have to read more about before I understand it.

Ayn-Randism is either stage five or six. It's not about what, precisely, the ethical principles are, simply the fact that you follow them; that principles, not pure self-interest, is what dictates action. If they happen to dictate that respect for property rights means you shouldn't steal medicine to save a life, that isn't related to the question.

However, the similarity of Objectivist philosophy to purely contract-based ethics ("stage five") might throw this in to dispute.

So it seems to me that the "smart" play is to encourage everyone to act for the benefit of the community while you personally act to maximize your own benefit, society be damned. Obviously, maintaining the perception that your are acting for the "greater good" will factor into that, but your behavior will probably be quite different when nobody's watching.

Well, it is only the smart play if you are clever enough to deceive the whole society. Narcissus, meet hubris. That said:

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/th ... he-office/
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/th ... -gametalk/
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/04/14/th ... velopment/
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/10/14/th ... an-beings/