Originally posted by Ren
And cyber, you haven’t seen me going low yet =p
You misunderstand. Kohlberg’s very first stage of moral development is “punishment orientation,” which means that the way you act is due to punishment rather than what is right.
(“You shouldn’t steal mp3s because you might get caught!”)
Oh, that… I believe his theory to be right. I don’t restrain myself from doing bad stuff for nothing. I don’t do bad stuff 'cause I don’t wanna be punished. It’s part of the human mind. A good literature which represents the fact is creature raising in B&W :hahaha;
You see, I believe I will never be caught with my Roms, movies, pirate games, programs & OS and mp3’s since I’m out of RIAA’s and many other organizations and companies’ sphere of influence, so I use them freely and even resell pirate stuff sometimes. It’s almost 600% return of what I invest in virgin CD’s. But I can be caught by murder, so I don’t kill anyone.
Originally posted by Ren
Oh, that… I believe his theory to be right. I don’t restrain myself from doing bad stuff for nothing. I don’t do bad stuff 'cause I don’t wanna be punished. It’s part of the human mind.
Well then- if you say the latter statement then you do not agree with his theory. Your attitude about morality, according to Kohlberg, is mostly attributed to young children. They usually grow out of it.
The other stages (yeah, I’m going to copy verbatum from my psych book now- I’m glad that I read ahead… other than the fact psychology is VERY interesting):
Preconventional:
Stage 1: Punishment orientation. Actions are evaluated in terms of possible punishment, not goodness or badness; obedience to power is emphasized.
Stage 2: Pleasure-seeking orientation. Proper action is determined by one’s own needs; concern for the needs of others is largely a matter of “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours,” not of loyalty, gratitude, or justice.
Conventional:
Stage 3: Good boy/good girl orientation. Good behavior is that which pleases others in the immediate group or which brings approval; the emphasis is on being “nice.”
Stage 4: Authority orientation. In this stage the emphasis is on upholding law, order, and authority; doing one’s duty; and following the social rules.
Postconventional:
Stage 5: Social-contract orientation. Support of laws and rules is based on rational analysis and mutual agreement; rules are recognized as open to question but are upheld for the good of the community and in the name of democratic values.
Whether or not I agree with the theory is another story- but right now it makes you look kinda silly. >_>
EDIT: “The preconventional stages (1 and 2) are most characteristic of young children and delinquents. Conventional, group-oriented morals of stages 3 and 4 are typical of older children and most adults. Kohlberg estimated that only about 20 percent of the adult population achieves postconventional morality, representing self-direction and higher principles.”
DOUBLE EDIT: Heck, I’ll even give you the classical example used for this type of morality:
A woman was near death from Cancer, and there was only one drug that might save her. It was discovered by a druggist who was charging 10 times what it cost to make the drug. The sick woman’s husband could only pay $1,000, but the druggist wanted $2,000. He asked the druggist to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. The druggist said no. So the husband became desperate and broke into the store to steal the drug for his wife. Should he have done that? Was it right or wrong? Why?
I am a mix of stages then.
There is stuff that I don’t do because I think they are evil. I don’t think of revenge and termination as evil in all cases, so in these cases I don’t do for fear of punition. But this is just part of me. TO make it short, I am a mix of all stages but stage 3.
Originally posted by Cybercompost
A woman was near death from Cancer, and there was only one drug that might save her. It was discovered by a druggist who was charging 10 times what it cost to make the drug. The sick woman’s husband could only pay $1,000, but the druggist wanted $2,000. He asked the druggist to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. The druggist said no. So the husband became desperate and broke into the store to steal the drug for his wife. Should he have done that? Was it right or wrong? Why?
On a moral level: Yes. He took what he needed for his wife to survive, which is what she would’ve done if she were strong enough, saving a human life (which are all precious).
On a justice level: No. He stole, and he has to pay the penalty for stealing (extenuating circumstances may lessen the sentence and not get a full jail term/fine).
My level: He was justified in taking what he needed if he paid the druggist at a later date.
Originally posted by Cala
My level: He was justified in taking what he needed if he paid the druggist at a later date.
You did not answer why, though.
He’s doing what he needs for his loved one to live. If your loved one (say you’re older with a wife/husband and she’s all you’ve got) became deathly sick with cancer or another disease, you’d probably do anything to save your wife/husband. You may go to jail for a period of time, but it’d be better to be separated for that time and then reunite rather than not do anything, not go to jail, and have her die and spend the rest of your life wishing you had taken the chance to steal it.
I don’t know for US, but here in Brazil, the man would not have commited a crime, though justice would force him to pay as soon as he could. Laws here state that stealing is not a crime if the person who stole something did if because of hunger or if he/she needed a medicine desperately and couldn’t pay it. They are forced, though, to pay as soon as they can, and the owner of the stuff that’s being stolen has the right to take any defensive measures to protect his stuff by the time of the event.
In practice, someone doing something like this would be beaten by the guards and wouldn’t be able to pay for a lawyer so could go to prison and by the time they have a judgement they’ll have spent years in a cell.
CC, I was so glad to see you talk about Kohlberg here. I’ve always found the morality stages to be very interesting.
Ah, self-imposed morality, what a great thing it is.
America is tough on crime, despite that it has a crime rate above those countries that aren’t: Such as Norway, which instead of being tough on crime try to rehabilitate criminals back into society. And a lot of the criminals in America are reoccuring, that is not the case in Norway. My conclusion is that it is more effective to try and rehabilitate criminals back into society than it is to have severe sentences.
A woman was near death from Cancer, and there was only one drug that might save her. It was discovered by a druggist who was charging 10 times what it cost to make the drug. The sick woman’s husband could only pay $1,000, but the druggist wanted $2,000. He asked the druggist to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. The druggist said no. So the husband became desperate and broke into the store to steal the drug for his wife. Should he have done that? Was it right or wrong? Why?
Both.
We have to seperate between what feels morally right, and what is judicial right. Those who live within a society very often have different morals, but they are all required to adhere to the same laws. If the laws are put on the side in favour of personal morals, society would revert to uncivilised forms.
It seems right on the microscopic level, but wrong on the macroscopic.
See, I didn’t sleep through my social sciences classes. But right now it feels like I slept through my English classes.
Your English is good. I gotta put my two cents here tough. Norway is a country where there aren’t any major social conflicts. The guy who cleans the streets is not socially nor economically far from the one running the big companies. Overall, there is only one class. Since there are no beggars, low lifers and all, there are no reasons for people to commit most crimes. Almost 100% of people who are in prison must be there because they dealt with drugs, but they are not like the US drug mafia guys. Rehabing prisoners there is pretty easy.
On most of the world, people commit crimes to climb the social ladder, not for despair or the like. And just because someone’s had rehabing activities and studies in prison doesn’t mean they’ll lead a normal life from that moment on. People are afraid to give them a job because they feel they can’t trust the ex-prisoner. They’ll also suffer a lot of prejudice from people who know they were in prison. A rehabed person will have to convive with people around him whispering “hey, wasn’t that guy convicted for [insert crime here]?” “Yes. Don’t look at him. Let’s get away from him.” It ends up with the person falling into a state of misery which can’t be escaped, and the only hope they have to have some economical and social power is going back to crime.
I’m sorry I have to break your happy image of Norway. Granted, the differences between the guys who cleans the street and the directors of our top companies are less than they are in the USA: Here the guy who cleans the street can go and get a little extra so he can afford today’s dinner, but the differences are rapidly increasing. And most people in jail in Norway are there for a variety of reasons, mostly petty theft, but also quite a few for knifestabbing.
As for the last, that is a problem with those outside prison, not those who have been inside it. All that indicates, is that both needs to be rehabilitated.
And I’d like to hear your source for this part:
On most of the world, people commit crimes to climb the social ladder, not for despair or the like.
Jamil Chade and UN had made my mind on those, but I have a new concept now. I think people from there are a better source than UN, which I trust even less now.
People where?
And why do you trust the United Nations less?
Originally posted by Ren
They’ll also suffer a lot of prejudice from people who know they were in prison.
So to avoid that, they should be tortured in prison for the rest of their lives. Makes perfect sense to me! But seriously, the prejudice will also differ depending on where the person comes to live after prison. There are plenty of communities where people won’t ask too many questions about one’s past if one doesn’t want them to, and will judge the person based on what they do with them, not what they might have done at some other point in time. Especially if people will start regarding prison as a centre for rehabilitation and not punishment.
Nul: Most information I get from other countries comes to me by newspapers and magazines. However, I trust people more than I trust magazines & such. In this case, we’re talking about Norway, you’re from there, so I’m saying that in things concerning Norway I trust you more than I trust journals and all because you’re form there.
And I trust UN less because it’s the n-th time that information I got from it is not true. Those things I said about Norway are the result of a research made by Jamil Chade, a guy from UN.
edit
SK: yeah, the guy may hide that he’s been in prison, but someday people discover and then they’ll be afraid. I don’t think it justifies keeping people in prison forever, though. I think there should be better ways to deal with it than just rehab and let the guy go without further help.
You must have misunderstood the article, no one with enough intelligence to be in the U.N. or be potty trained would say “The guy who cleans the streets is not socially nor economically far from the one running the big companies [in Norway]”
Mr. Chade did.
Originally posted by Ren
[b]Nul: Most information I get from other countries comes to me by newspapers and magazines. However, I trust people more than I trust magazines & such. In this case, we’re talking about Norway, you’re from there, so I’m saying that in things concerning Norway I trust you more than I trust journals and all because you’re form there.And I trust UN less because it’s the n-th time that information I got from it is not true. Those things I said about Norway are the result of a research made by Jamil Chade, a guy from UN.
edit
SK: yeah, the guy may hide that he’s been in prison, but someday people discover and then they’ll be afraid. I don’t think it justifies keeping people in prison forever, though. I think there should be better ways to deal with it than just rehab and let the guy go without further help. [/b]
I’m pretty sure that most of his research is correct, but like most scientists, he forgot the adjectives. Add those and his report should end up at about the same as I said.
There are differences between the social structure of America and Norway, just like there are differences in the social structure between all places. Even closely related ones, like America and Canada. But I am still of the opinion that rehabilitation is the most effective treatment against crime and not harsh punishments.
And of course, America could also try and become a welfare state and that way stop all the crimes that are made by desperate people.
Rehabilitation along with prevention should drastically reduce crime. Moreso than harsh punishments, that are only truely effective against joy riders - that is people who conduct crimes for fun. Sadly, there’s quite a few of those too.