I said: >There is lots of fun complexity here to unpack that I won't try to do on >an email list.
Paul Smith asked: > Why not? Are you hiding something? ;) Mostly I'm hiding the fact that I don't have time to do the unpacking. For instance, are there three basic moral stances as Rozin et al claim (autonomy, community, divinity) or four, as some research my students & I are doing suggests (justice, care, sacredness, self-interest)? What do we mean by basic? Most accessible, like basic concepts? Philosopically fundamental? God help us here, since each of the four can be viewed as fundamental and producing the other three. What about non-religious folks? Do they have anything like a "sacredness" or "divinity" schema for moral reasoning (the way non-prejudiced people still have the schemas available to support prejudice)? Do any of these moral schemas change across cultures? Across religions within the same culture? How do they develop? How are they brought into action (e.g. what primes the use of one schema rather than the other?). How are they related to self-concept (e.g. are they central motivators for some people and peripheral for others?) I've got 20 years to official retirement age, and unpacking these questions and other will take far longer than that. BTW, here is a free teaching point: in terms of the active research going on in moral psychology, we are now clearly post-Kohlbergian. Even the remaining Kohlberg camp at the University of Minnesota (headed for some time by the late James Rest) is now publishing things with "neo-Kohlberg" and "schema" in the title. So, when you teach Kohlberg in the classroom make sure to mention that the field has moved beyond the standard stage models even though the textbooks have not. -Chuck -- - Chuck Huff; 507.646.3169; http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/ - Psychology Department, St.Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
