Which Level of Morality Are You?

Morality is the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. It is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Lawrence Kohlberg (October 25, 1927 – January 19, 1987) was an American psychologist best known for his theory of stages of moral development. The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor. Furthermore, logic and morality develop through 3 constructive levels.

According to his theory, the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice, and it continues throughout an individual’s lifetime. Stages cannot be skipped, and it is extremely rare to regress in stages. Progress from one stage to the next usually occurs when an individual with increasing competence gained from life experience encounters a moral dilemma and finds their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, thus, they will look to the next level. Realizing the limitations of the current stage of thinking is the driving force behind moral development, as each progressive stage is more adequate than the last.

It is important to note that most people are usually content to stay at their current level because it is familiar, which helps explain why some people never seem to evolve past certain beliefs. While we can easily look back and recognize the levels that we have already passed through, it is quite difficult to conceive of those levels that are higher. However, life delivers painful experiences to us that challenge our current belief system, our views of people, and our social perspective, pushing us to the next level.

Before discussing the stages, consider the following scenario:

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her: a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So, Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s laboratory to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?

 

PRE-CONVENTIONAL
The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. It is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society’s conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring. Throughout the preconventional level, an individual’s sense of morality is externally controlled. For example, children accept and believe the rules of authority figures, such as parents and teachers.

 

STAGE 1
Obedience and Punishment

Stage 1 focuses on an individual’s desire to obey rules and avoid being punished. An action is perceived as morally wrong solely because the perpetrator is punished. For example, a child will perceive an action to be bad because they were spanked afterwards. The worse the punishment for the act is, the more “bad” the act is perceived to be. This level of thinking is problematic because 1) it can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering and 2) it lacks recognition that others’ points of view are different from one’s own.

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person.

Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.

 

STAGE 2
Self-Interest

Stage 2 expresses the “what’s in it for me” position, in which right behavior is defined by whatever the individual believes to be in their best interest but understood in a narrow way which does not consider one’s reputation or relationships to groups of people. For example, a child might ask, “what’s in it for me?” when told to do a chore by their parents. The parents offer the child an incentive by giving a child an allowance to pay them for their chores. Stage 2 reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further the individual’s own interests. As a result, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, but rather a “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” mentality.

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.

Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife’s death.

 

CONVENTIONAL
The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development and is typical of adolescents and adults. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society’s conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society’s norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, and a rule’s appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned to ensure positive relationships and societal order.

 

STAGE 3
Interpersonal Accord and Conformity

In Stage 3, the self enters society by conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society’s views. They try to be a “good boy” or “good girl” to live up to these expectations, having learned that being regarded as good benefits the self. Stage 3 reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person’s relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the “golden rule”. “I want to be liked and thought well of; apparently, not being naughty makes people like me.” Conforming to the rules for one’s social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that “they mean well”.

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband.

Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.

 

STAGE 4
Authority and Social-Order Maintaining

In Stage 4, it is important to obey laws, dictums, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong. Rules are seen as being the same for everyone, and obeying rules by doing what one is “supposed” to do is seen as valuable and important. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal.

Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.

 

POST-CONVENTIONAL
The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that an individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles, defined in terms of more abstract philosophies and values, including such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms. Rules are useful because they can help maintain the general social order and protect human rights, but those that are inconsistent with an individual’s own principles can be disobeyed. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be blindly followed without question, and for those that believe that some laws are unjust also believe they should be changed or eliminated.

It is important to note that because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage 6, can be confused with those at the pre-conventional level.

 

STAGE 5
Social Contract

In Stage 5, the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law.

Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.

 

STAGE 6
Universal Ethical Principles

In Stage 6, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon.

It is speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.

THE HEINZ DILEMMA:
Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.

Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

 

Ask Yourself:

How did your answer to the Heinz dilemma compare with the answers in the stages?

Are you thinking at a higher social level of understanding?

What areas can you work on to improve your morality?

 

 

Thank you for reading this blog entry. I hope you found it easy to understand and enlightening.

Cheers!

Brightfool

“Our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.”

If you enjoyed this blog, don’t forget to subscribe for more!

A “Good” Country

I am a big fan of “TED Talks.” If you’re not familiar, “TED Talks shares the best ideas from the TED Conference with the world, for free: trusted voices and convention-breaking mavericks, icons and geniuses, all giving the talk of their lives in 18 minutes.” TED Talks remind me of ancient Greece when students and philosophers would gather to discuss ideas, no matter how big or small, to progress mankind’s way of thinking. TED Talks takes this same concept and records it for the world to see.

One such video that really struck me is titled “Which country does the most good for the world?” by Simon Anholt. In his video Simon discusses what constitutes a “good” country, and he wonders where we are as a society based on these observations. Simon goes on to say that a “good” country isn’t necessarily one that is prosperous, but rather one that is selfless, no matter if they are rich or poor. As you may imagine, during our trying political times here in the U.S.A., this video only grows in its significance regarding our society.

If you haven’t had the experience of a TED Talk, or if you haven’t had the privilege of hearing this particular video, I encourage you to listen to it. Simon Anholt is a very eloquent speaker, and he is sure to grab your attention as soon as he begins. By the end, I’ll bet you’ll be asking yourself the same question I was: “Am I living in a good country?”

Click here to watch it directly from Youtube.
Cheers!

Brightfool

“Our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.”

If you enjoyed this blog, don’t forget to subscribe for more!

Gasoline

And the Crazy Amount We Consume

Why Am I Bringing This Up?

Every work day I commute 100 miles (160 kilometers) roundtrip. To help save on gas, I travel on a small motorcycle: a 2014 Kawasaki Ninja 300 ABS. Every day I top it off with about 2 gallons (7.5 liters) of gasoline. Not too shabby, if you do the math, because that means my little motorcycle gets about 50 miles per gallon (21 kilometers per liter). But even with the great mileage, I’ve been wondering lately how much gasoline I’ve really been using…

The Amount of Gasoline I Consume

2 gallons (7.5 liters) of gasoline each work day
10 gallons (37.5 liters) of gasoline each week (at 5 work days per week)
40 gallons (150 liters) of gasoline each month (at 4 weeks average per month)
520 gallons (1950 liters) of gasoline each year (I don’t really take vacations)

So, every year I burn about 520 gallons (1950 liters) of gasoline, a highly toxic and dangerous chemical. This is the equivalent to burning 5-6 bathtubs full of gasoline each year. Keep in mind, I’m driving to work on my little motorcycle, a vehicle smaller and more efficient than most automotive vehicles in the world. If you consider that average cars only get half of the mileage that I do, then that means that most cars who are commuting like me are burning twice as much gas listed above.

Which leads me to my next question: If there are more drivers on the road than ever before, how much gasoline are we collectively burning up?…

The Amount the U.S.A. Consumes

Americans are the leaders when it comes gasoline consumption. Big surprise. I’m pretty sure if cars could put on weight they’d be fat, too. Anyways, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Americans consume about 384 million gallons (1,453 million liters) each day, or roughly 140 billion gallons (530 billion liters) of gasoline each year. With a population of about 325 million, that means that every individual, whether they drive or not, is doing the equivalent of taking more than 1 gallon (4 liters) of gasoline every single day and burning it into the atmosphere.

The Amount the World Consumes

World consumption of gasoline estimates roughly 14 million barrels a day.
If we assume that each barrel holds 42 gallons (159 liters) of gasoline, that’s 560 million gallons (2,120 million liters) every day.
16,800 million gallons (63,600 million liters) every month.
204,400 million gallons (773,800 million liters) every year.

To help put this into perspective, that’s the equivalent of burning an Olympic-size swimming pool with 660,000 gallons (2,498,000 liters) of gasoline every 15 seconds into the atmosphere.

 

An Answer?

I’d like to say that there is a simple answer to preventing the release of more poisonous gasoline into the air, because in fact the answer is simple: stop using gasoline. The real problem is that not enough people are going to do it.

Think about it for a second: Our entire world is the way that it is because of oil and gasoline. Trains, airplanes, trucks, cars, lawnmowers, generators, space shuttles, etc. all run on this type of fuel. To say that our society should stop using gasoline and oil is almost the same as saying that our world and its economy should stop existing. No one is going to give it up, not even at the prospect of annihilation, because the reality is that the small amount of people in politics and in the oil companies who have the power and influence over this product are not going to stop using their money-maker without a fight.

So, enjoy your lungs while you have them.

Thank you for reading this blog entry!

Brightfool

“Our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.”

If you enjoyed this blog, don’t forget to subscribe for more!

The Immigration Problem

Wouldn’t it be nice if you were free to go and live anywhere in the world that you wanted to? No questions, procedures, fences, borders, etc.- if you wanted to go somewhere, you would simply just go. If you were bored with where you live, if you wanted to experience something new, or if your neighborhood was undesirable, you could simply pack your bags and leave, free to relocate to where you thought the grass was greener.

Of course, the reality is that territories need immigration policies to help keep threats out and to prevent sudden overpopulations that the economy might not be able to support. It should be fair to say that current residents should not have to suffer any criminal or terrorist threats that might sneak into the area. The same current residents, wild animals included, should also not have to suffer any food, water, economical, or space shortages because there are too many people being densely crammed into an area.

Does this mean that countries should have the right to block anyone from entering their world? Is there something inhumane about preventing people from immigrating to better lands? After all, most countries were built upon the backs of immigrants, and most immigrants are either trying to meet up with loved ones, searching for better opportunities, or simply fleeing areas where their survival is not guaranteed.

Here in the USA, there is an immigration revolution happening. The Trump administration has been leading Republicans in an effort to ban immigrants, demonstrated by its Muslim ban, DAPA and DACA cancellations, funding for new wall improvements along the US-Mexican border, and by giving ICE (The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) more power to deport or imprison immigrants, even by means of inhumane policies such as separation of immigrant families and indefinite imprisonment. The country that was once a symbol of hope to those in need is now closing its doors to the world.

Immigration Luck

Philosophers will tell you that life is an act of pure luck. During the complete existence of the universe, the odds of you being born at this moment in time are staggering. Those odds increase even more dramatically when you factor in the family you were born into as well as the location of the world where you were born. Depending on your luck, you might have been born into a wealthy family, you might have been born into an average family, you might have been born into a poor family. You might have been born into an area where resources and government are good, fair, or poor. You might have been born in a country during peace or you might have been born into a country during war.

So, imagine that you were born into a poor region, like so many other people in this world. You have no money, no job, some days you go without food, the water is dirty, and maybe you might be sleeping in the dirt. To make matters worse, you’re surrounded by war and violence, and every day is a battle to not die. How exactly would you be able to appropriate the means to move to a better place? After all, there are fees to pay, IDs to procure, and time to spend waiting. If you were homeless, with family starving to death, and a terrorist group was heading your way carrying a bullet with your name, what would you be willing to do to get away?

Thus, is it any wonder that people sneak into better countries, sometimes even dangerously? After all, a mother does not cast her child away alone on a boat with strangers, unless it is absolutely the only option she has against her child dying. So, is it appropriate to label someone as a criminal just because they didn’t enter a country by following procedures that never realistically applied to them in the first place? Or is it the process itself that is creating such acts of desperation?

A Reasonable Immigration Solution

We need a better system. Every country does, in fact. One that can speed up the immigration process while simultaneously vetting every individual that immigrates to a new territory. First, it should have different levels of processing depending on the situation. For those who are not in danger, they can apply, pay the fees, and, once cleared, they can move in good time. For those in danger, they can immediately enter the territory, but they will be placed into a “safe” zone. While in this zone, they will be free from harm, sheltered and cared for, but they will not be able to leave until they have passed vetting. If cleared, they can enter the territory and apply for a visa. If it is discovered that they have either a criminal background or criminal intent, then they will either be jailed and/or returned to whence they came.

Second, fees should be reasonable. Who really believes it makes sense to expect a destitute immigrant to gather a ridiculously large amount of money for fees? Fees should be affordable with the poor in mind. As an alternative, an immigrant can apply for a government loan, which they can use to pay their application and/or processing fees. Once the immigrant is allowed entrance, they can be helped to find work and then pay off their loan. In this way, they contribute to society and the government makes money. If the immigrant goes delinquent on the loan because they don’t want to work, then they are removed from the country.

And third, for immigrants who are already in the country illegally, there needs to a be a mandatory registry, so we know who they are. Registering does not mean they will be deported; it is only for documentation purposes. However, any illegal immigrant who is caught breaking the law and is not registered will be subject to deportation. This will help ensure that those who are here obeying our laws and wish to stay will make sure to register. Once they are in the system, they can be reviewed by a judge case by case. Special circumstances, such as DACA recipients (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), refugees, immigrants who serve in the armed forces, or victims of abuse will be given the opportunity to apply for a visa. Immigrants who have overstayed their visas will have an opportunity to renew. In all cases, those who are proven to be of good character and background will receive an opportunity to apply for a visa. Those who are found to be criminal, terrorist, or abusing the visa program will be jailed and/or removed from the territory.

That being said, what defines criminal activity for illegals also needs to be clarified. Obviously, those that are proven murderers, drug dealers, domestic abusers, etc., should not be allowed. However, illegal immigrants who use fake IDs to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves and their families should not be defined as criminals. Illegals who drive without licenses because they have no access to get one should also not be treated as a criminal. They can be charged with a misdemeanor and pay a reasonable fine, but for crimes like these, they should not be subject to deportation.

Conclusion

Humankind is a long way from realizing that although we are all very different, we are still the same. It is terrific that everyone has their own unique personality, traits, intelligence, creativity, and story to tell. That is what makes every one of us interesting. But remember, in the end, we are all human, living on the same rock we call Earth, our one and only universal home, and we should all be as free as possible to do so.

Thank you for reading this blog entry!

Brightfool

“Our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.”

If you enjoyed this blog, don’t forget to subscribe for more!

Points of View

“Just because you are right, does not mean I am wrong.”

How true is this statement? After all, there are many points of view to any story or topic, and in many cases those views can hold some truth even when in complete opposition. In the image above, one figure sees a number 6 on the ground while the opposite figure sees a number 9. At face value, both figures are correct in what they claim to see, rendering this a good example of why it is important to try to understand what someone with an opposing argument is saying, especially if they have a decent reason.

However, it will typically not be the case where both opposing sides of a story or argument are correct; Someone will be wrong when the other person is right. The hard part is gathering the correct information with which to base a decision. In the above image, the number is either a six or a nine, not both, thus the two figures need to gather more information. Are there any other numbers to compare to? Is there a building to face? Is there anyone that they can ask who knows for sure what number it is?

While it’s important to try to understand that others may be speaking truth from their point of view, it is considerably more important to gather as much relevant information as possible so that the logical conclusion can be revealed. No one triumphs when someone just wants to be right, when they have an uninformed opinion about something they don’t understand, have done no research, or simply proclaims their opinion as being equally valid as facts.
Thank you for reading this blog entry!

Brightfool

“Our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.”

If you enjoyed this blog, don’t forget to subscribe for more!

Hello World

This is my first blog entry.

I am by no means a blogger, though. I was born in the early 80’s. As a child I went outside to play in the dirt. My family brought home our first computer when I was a teenager. I’m not what some would refer to as “smart” so I didn’t pay much attention to computers even after we had one. By the time I realized how significant computers were going to be in the world, I was an adult and I felt like I had missed the boat.

Why do I bring all that up? Because like most people, you could say I have a few issues. I don’t really want to go into a lot of personal details, just suffice it to say that after some heavy reflection, I’ve decided that I would like to try to relieve some of my pent-up stress by writing about certain topics of interest. That means that I need to get back on the boat so I can figure out how this blogging thing works.

I know that this particular blog entry will be for the small percentage of viewers who wish to know how it all started. I realize that successful bloggers generally write for their readers, because that is how they keep their subscribers coming back for more, but honestly, I don’t care. I’m just interested in occasionally writing what’s on my mind, and I’ll call it therapeutic.

The name of my blog is Brightfool. I basically chose this oxymoron because 1) the other names I really liked were already taken, and 2) because of the “clever” juxtaposition of intelligences. I believe every topic has a reasonable answer that is most often clouded by stupidity. After all, our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.

I’m no different than anyone else- just an average, simple idiot. Aside from venting, my goal is to help strip popular topics down to the undeniable truth using the best of my abilities, my limited education, and my inadequate access to world news.

Cheers!

Brightfool

“Our brightest are still fools, while our fools think they are bright.”

If you enjoyed this blog, don’t forget to subscribe for more!