What is the highest stage of moral development?

[r0ckyreed]

What is the highest stage of moral development?

Disclaimer: Please don’t answer with “morality is a social construct and does not exist.”  That is a foolish answer because you contradict yourself.  If you are breathing, alive, and reading this, then you have a bias for this illusion called life.  Morality is inevitable as long as you have a bias to live.  If you do not care about morality, then you are a devil, and I only care about God and living as closely to the Goodness of God that I can.  This is one thing I think is missing from Actualized.org teachings.  Leo gives metaphysical insights about God but just because you awaken does not mean that you transcend devilry and being a devil. 

In addition, please do not respond with just "Selflessness." Or that "Morality cannot be conceptualized by a theory. Goodness is beyond any human theories and conceptualizations."  These kind of responses do not help human kind to develop morally.  Without a map, you are essentially trusting the masses to be able to know how to sail (which they do not; otherwise, we would not have any more horrendous crimes).  So, we need to value and contemplate moral theories because they can help people become moral and construct a more conscious society.  You will have a theory of morality regardless of what you believe, so might as well construct a positive and conscious one.

What is the highest stage of moral development?

How should one live?  What is the highest goodness, virtue, and morality that humans can aspire to?  What is the highest stage of moral development?

There are many models of morality.  Kohlberg defined 3 levels of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional.  Within the 3 levels are 6 total stages:

Stages of Moral Development (Kohlberg)

Preconventional

1.     Obedience and punishment

-       Good and bad is linked to whether or not we get punished or not.  A person at this stage is not motivated to be good for its own sake.  They only care about avoiding punishment

2.     Self-interest

-       Morality at this stage is motivated by self-interest.  “What is in it for me?”  In psychological/ethical egoism theory, all morality is argued to stem from this stage.  A person at this stage only does what is good because it serves their self.  They are aware of punishments and consequences but the difference is that in this stage, a person will act despite known punishments as long as it is in their self-interest.

Conventional

3.     Interpersonal/conformity

-       Morality at this stage is motivated by “what others think of me?”  Good and bad is viewed as whether other people will approve of your behavior or not.

4.     Authority and maintaining social order

-       Morality is motivated by valuing authority and maintaining social-order or status-quo.  A person at this stage will act despite what “others think of me” to maintain social-order.  Morality at this stage is higher than conformity and what “others” think but more about “upholding rules to sustain a functioning society.”

5.     Social contract

-       Morality is viewed as a social contact as opposed to strict absolute rules.  At this stage, rules are evaluated on whether “a rule truly serves all members of society.”

Postconventional

6.     Universal ethical principles

-       At the stage, morality and rules are valid only if they are grounded in justice. Morality is guided by justice and our own inner-compass as opposed to self-interest and social conformity.  The highest moral principle is compassion.  A person at this stage believes that people should learn and understand all perspectives.  A person at this stage may ask “What are the abstract ethical principles that serve my understandings of justice?”

 

Source:https://sproutsschools.com/kohlbergs-6-stages-of-moral-development/

 

Other moral theories include:

 

Ethical Egoism

-       Psychological egoism is the view that human nature is ultimately selfish and all behavioral are always motivated by self-interest.

-       Ethical egoism is the view that something is moral as long as it is in accordance with one’s own self-interest.  If it goes against one’s own self-interest, then the action is viewed as morally wrong.

 

Virtue Ethics

-       Virtue ethics view moral virtue as central to ethics.  It is essentially about cultivating “virtuous habits.”  It is a quest to live a life of moral character.

-       This view of morality is “character-focused.” -- "How should I live?"

-       An act is bad is deemed to be morally wrong if it makes our character morally inferior or unvirtuous in any way.

 

Deontology

-       Deontology  is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of “following rules to distinguish from right and wrong.”  Ethical actions follow “universal laws.”

-       “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” - Kant

-       Unverbalizable laws include: Don’t lie, Don’t steal, Don’t kill, etc.

-       It is about doing your duty to following these rules and not about consequences.  

-       An act is good as long it is following the unverbalizable rules.

-       Deontology essentially views individuals as “ends” rather than “means.”  This means that individual agents are intrinsically valued and not instrumentally treated as “chess pieces.”  

-       Actions are inherently good and bad.

-       Operates off of the Golden Rule - "Treating others the way I would want to be treated."

 

Utilitarianism

-       Utilitarianism picks up on the flaws of deontology and focuses on the consequences of an action – what that action produces in the world.

-       Utilitarianism views moral goodness as any action that produces that most good in the world.  

-       Utilitarianism is focused on providing the most goodness and well-being to all of society despite the actions leading up to it.

-       Utilitarianism, in the traditional sense, essentially views actions and individual lives as chess pieces in the game of chess.  The ultimate goal is to have peace for all involved and that might mean making sacrifices to win the war.

-       Actions are not inherently good or bad, as long as it brings about the best result.

 

Here is my question to you:  Which moral theory is the highest that we should aspire to?  If the moral theory is not on the list, feel free to make your own up.

 

My thoughts on this are that I think we should all aspire to be Deontologists and Virtue Ethicists.  I used to buy into utilitarianism because it seemed like a very attractive theory to our pragmatically minded society.  Our society has a result-based mindset.  

For Deontology, I think it is wise to have established rules that can be universalizable.  To me, Deontology is similar to social contract theory, but it goes much deeper.  Social contract theory focuses on the rules, laws, or “contracts” dictated by a society.  Deontology has imbedded in the theory of a larger duty beyond what a society deems as “just.”  Deontologists will act on maxims that are universalizable and will act despite of what a society may think.  For instance, a society could be a social contract that makes racism justifiable, but a Deontologist has a deeper duty to treat all humans with fairness and compassions because they are seen as intrinsically valuable.  Moral actions are intrinsically valuable to a Deontologist.  

The issue with Deontology is that it focuses on rules and maxims that are universalizable.  But our whole is becoming so diverse that the whole notion of having a rule that can be universalizable can be seen as folly.  However, the closest maxim that I find to be anything close to universalizable is the Golden Rule of treating others the way I would want to be treated.  This Golden Rule will apply to Virtue Ethics as well.  I feel like Virtue Ethics and Deontology are connected.  The main difference is that Virtue Ethics is focused on character development, whereas Deontology is focused on the social aspect of moral duty to uphold universalizable rules.  

The issue with virtue ethics is that it makes morality about character development.  This may seem good on the surface, but there is a bigger issue of what determines whether a person is morally developed or not?  How can morality be based solely on moral virtue if most of society may never reach the highest stages of moral develop?  Virtue ethics seems very self-centered. 

I personally go back and forth between virtue ethics and deontology.  One of the reasons why I like deontology is because it highlights that a “good life” is one that is lived by “good principles.”  But I guess, you could argue that a virtue ethics individual could also be a deontologist in their own ways or vice versa.  But to me, morality is deeper than any one individual’s character.  Morality to me is about being in alignment and integrity with one’s own principles for living a good life.  A virtue ethicist may ask “how should one live?”  A deontologist may ask “What is my duty?” What principles do I need to follow?” 

 

Flaws to virtue ethics is that it seems self-centered on character development, as opposed to societal development.  I guess that you could make the case that character development is the foundation for all other development.  Unfortunately, not everyone is so privileged to have access to the highest education to have equal accessibility to developing themselves morally, you could argue. 

In addition, virtue ethics can also be unclear about what to do in ethical situations and dilemmas.  What virtues do you use in a situation?  Is it better to be honest or be beneficent, etc.?  One thing that I do like about virtue ethics is that it focuses the moral development of our personal character.  The issue is that it can be unclear as what is most virtuous or what is the most ethical?  But I guess you could say that with all moral theories.  

Edited February 26, 2022 by r0ckyreed

[puporing]

I have 'subscribed' to what boils down to the "highest love in every situation" as the aim. It's kind of abstract at first but it becomes obvious to you after some time. Obviously, a lot of this overlaps with what you've stated already. I just don't feel like it's helpful to me to follow a strict set, as there always will be exceptions depending on the circumstance. But I suppose it can be a good place to start for some. 

[r0ckyreed]

5 minutes ago, puporing said:

 

I have 'subscribed' to what boils down to the "highest love in every situation" as the aim.

 

Nice.  I totally agree with that.  I believe morality should be centered around selflessness and the highest love possible.  It sounds like utilitarianism but utilitarianism seems to conflate love with utility.

 

8 minutes ago, puporing said:

Obviously, a lot of this overlaps with what you've stated already. I just don't feel like it's helpful to me to follow a strict set, as there always will be exceptions depending on the circumstance. But I suppose it can be a good place to start for some. 

Yeah.  There is a lot of overlap for sure.  I think subscribing to a holistic approach is a good idea.  It can help you cross-reference and see the bigger picture.  The only flaw I see with the holistic approach is that it can be very overwhelming with a lot of different maps of the same territory.  But in moral situations, multiple perspectives are needed in many cases.

[John Paul]

To have already studied, contemplated and deconstructed so much that you intuitively know the most compassionate action to attempt in day to day life (of course mistakes will be made, miscalculations, ignorance etc.) 

"You can't algorithmize integrity"   stop trying!!!!!!!

Is this right or wrong....? depends on _________. well what if it was _________? well then it would be right in this case scenario and wrong in this one

i mean you could do that hour after hour after hour after hour.....or you could just wake up bro

[The Buddha]

Justice and compassion

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, John Paul said:

Is this right or wrong....? depends on _________. well what if it was _________? well then it would be right in this case scenario and wrong in this one

i mean you could do that hour after hour after hour after hour.....or you could just wake up bro

And what do you do after you wake up? How does one be the most moral and virtuous human being? Waking up has nothing to do with morality and virtue. 

 

1 hour ago, Fearey said:

The highest stage of moral development is the disintegration of all moral values.

Not sure I understand how disintegrating moral values makes one moral. If you don’t value something, how can you embody that?

 

1 hour ago, The Buddha said:

Justice and compassion

Yes of course. That is what morality is about. The question is how to reach the highest stages of moral (justice and compassion).

Justice and compassion are relative. Do you mean justice and compassion in a Kantian, Deontological sense or in a utilitarian sense or what?