Quick comments interleaved. Please do not mistake brevity for curtness. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity wrote:
> >> IIRC, Nidich is affiliated with the TMO and is a proponent of a > > "cosmic level" of moral development, > > beyond the Kohlberg states. Lots > > of theory here and not a lot of fact. Also, there is plenty of > > criticisms regarding Kohlberg and his states of moral development, > > which are based more on justice than compassion. I associate ethical behavior with doing what's right, which I associate with justice and fairness, not compassion. I wonder what kinds of tests people use to measure compassion? > And, his states > > pertain only to moral reasoning, not to whether someone acts in a > > moral or ethical way or is in any respect a good person. This is the nut issue here. ^ I understand the gold standard of science to be the longitudinal study, which may not be possible in this instance. But failure to live up to that standard of research does not mean all other methods are invalid, does it? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" wrote: > Ah, thank you Ruth. I was wondering given > the record. Improved 'moral > reasoning' is solemnly pointed to by > the Dr. in Hagelin's powerpoint > present. Moral reasonging. It is a > mouthful as he says it, but oddly > there was not elaboration. Moral > reasoning. Improved moral reasoning > but a school and program with no > ethical code or consideration. Not > a "we are this and not that" to be found. > No chart on moral behavior. > No limit to what they will tolerate > in ethical behavior. Very nuevo. The instruction is simple and, in my day, oft repeated: Do not do that which you know to be wrong. So the question would be, in interviewing someone who did something the rest of us find morally compromised, "Did you simply not know such an act was wrong? Or did you know, yet do it anyway?"
