Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GLINDA:
(Spoken)
Elphie, now that we're friends, i've decided to make you my new project!
ELPHABA:
(Spoken)
you really don't have to do that...
GALINDA:
(Spoken)
i know, that's what makes me so nice!
(Sung)
whenever i see someone less fortunate than i,
and let's face it, who isn't less fortunate than i?
my tender heart tends to start to bleed.
and when someone needs a makeover,
i simply have to take over!
i know i know exactly what they need!
Morality is an interesting discussion to have
What motivates people to be moral.
A popular discussion point is can one have morals without God?
Some would say yes and some would say no.
wrt to the op point about ages & stages of moral development, I would ask if kids are actually moral at all. Is moral an adult concept. By this I mean consider this
Quote:
The first stage is conventional role conformity, where moral thinking is ruled by punishments and rewards.
I would say behaviour is ruled by punishments and rewards but thinking?
We punish our kids for what they do not what they think.
Does the punishment alter what they think? Interesting point.
I would think that to be moral you need to have consciousness. I do not think kids are really 'self aware' until they get to about maybe 10 or so and even then it is more of a self consciousness followed by a selfish consciousness in their teen years. So if they are not 'self aware' how can they be moral?
I think morality is an adult concept.
Take nudity as an example. Kids up till about 8 I guess will run round the house naked. Rip off their clothes and swim naked in a creek. Some parents on the other hand see that as immoral. I do not think the kids think in terms of moral or immoral.
Kohlberg's theory of moral development states that people evolve through 3 levels of moral development. The first stage is conventional role conformity, where moral thinking is ruled by punishments and rewards. The second level is role conformity, where morality is guided by external social expectations and authority figures. The third stage is self accepted moral principles, where people begin to act according to the common good, regardless if it conflicts with established rules and values. If this is true, are we teaching our kids to be less moral through rewarding good behavior (as in if one gets good grades they can get a good job which will provide them with material goods) and enforcing punitive policies for bad behavior (such as zero tolerance policies for kids who are caught at school with drugs)? Could we be raising our kids in a society which enforces policies that stunt teenagers' moral development? Are we not teaching them to think about right versus wrong, and to develop their own internalized values?
Does your question not concern itself with the upper stages of moral development? There are six stages in all, with the last stage having the basis for morality internalized according to a sense of universal justice distinct from laws and customs.
Depends on who you talk to. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche all had interesting perspectives governing right and wrong, morality and the general human existence. I would suggest starting with Socrates, man did he have a lot to say about "corrupting youth", and work your way up to Nietzsche. After all of that, you might be able to develop your own thought process and answer the question.
I am a graduate student who is working on a presentation for class. Posting to this forum is actually part of the assignment. I am not trying to cheat my way around researching for a paper, or any such thing. And I have read nearly all of the philosophers you listed. I just wanted to post a question more interesting than, "What's up with bullying?"
I brought up morality development because it seems like every problem society sees teenagers as having (sex, drugs, bullying) is viewed through a lens of morality. Everyone says teenagers just don't care anymore. I don't know if I believe that, but if it's true, could it be because we're not encouraging them to care? If the ultimate goal of school is financial success and not learning for the sake of learning, wouldn't children internalize the values of individualism and materialism rather than being an enlightened, well rounded person? I guess the question I should have posted is not "are teenagers immoral," but should have been, "could the people who believe teenagers are immoral have inadvertantly encouraged immorality among teenagers?"
Does your question not concern itself with the upper stages of moral development? There are six stages in all, with the last stage having the basis for morality internalized according to a sense of universal justice distinct from laws and customs.
Yes, that is exactly what I am concerned with, internalized values distinct from laws and customs. I was trying to simplify the stages for people who may not be acquainted with the theory.
I am a graduate student who is working on a presentation for class. Posting to this forum is actually part of the assignment. I am not trying to cheat my way around researching for a paper, or any such thing.
Thank you for clearing this up. Since a lot of us were leery about doing someone else's homework (we can be a suspicious lot) I think you'll get a lot more input now.
I think that depends on whether you mean relative to the rest of society or not. You can't really compare today's morality to that of the past. If you did, every woman in the western world would be considered immoral by those of the Victorian era because we now find it acceptable to show our ankles in public.
I think kids are just as moral by today's standards as they've always been. In fact, if you judge morality based on sexual exploits and hedonism, I'd say they are actually more moral than the generations that went before them, who came of age in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
That's why I'm always a little confused by the "kids of today" rhetoric that gets thrown around a lot. Kids of today are not worse than their parents, as far as "immoral" acts go. In fact, some of them seem almost puritan, by comparison.
I am a graduate student who is working on a presentation for class. Posting to this forum is actually part of the assignment. I am not trying to cheat my way around researching for a paper, or any such thing. And I have read nearly all of the philosophers you listed. I just wanted to post a question more interesting than, "What's up with bullying?"
I brought up morality development because it seems like every problem society sees teenagers as having (sex, drugs, bullying) is viewed through a lens of morality. Everyone says teenagers just don't care anymore. I don't know if I believe that, but if it's true, could it be because we're not encouraging them to care? If the ultimate goal of school is financial success and not learning for the sake of learning, wouldn't children internalize the values of individualism and materialism rather than being an enlightened, well rounded person? I guess the question I should have posted is not "are teenagers immoral," but should have been, "could the people who believe teenagers are immoral have inadvertantly encouraged immorality among teenagers?"
Works for me. A lot of questions get posted here and particularly in the history section that are simply students asking others to do their work for them in the guise of asking a legitimate question. The way you originally presented the question was much the same as a professor might present it as an assignment.
I personally think that there is a distinction between morals and values. Morals are the larger construct of a societies ideas about what is right and wrong, while values are the standards by which we describe things such as beauty and acceptability.
So, I don't think it is fair to describe teenagers as being "immoral". In general I think most people within a given society tend to share similar morality regardless of age. Where people often differ is with their values and these differences often vary the most between age groups.
Morality changes slowly as it is firmly rooted in tradition. In fact, I could argue that morality has changed little from a societal perspective over the course of human civilization. What has changed drastically over that time are individual values.
So, it is not that teenagers are immoral, if anything they are just as moral as anyone else. What is often different are their values and it seems to be human nature that children will test the values of their parents. I think it is the fallback of the older generations to assume that their "values" and their "morality" are the same.
Accusing someone of being immoral is akin to accusing them of being evil. I think people try to use the word immorality to combat what they see as a challenge to their values.
Works for me. A lot of questions get posted here and particularly in the history section that are simply students asking others to do their work for them in the guise of asking a legitimate question. The way you originally presented the question was much the same as a professor might present it as an assignment.
I personally think that there is a distinction between morals and values. Morals are the larger construct of a societies ideas about what is right and wrong, while values are the standards by which we describe things such as beauty and acceptability.
So, I don't think it is fair to describe teenagers as being "immoral". In general I think most people within a given society tend to share similar morality regardless of age. Where people often differ is with their values and these differences often vary the most between age groups.
Morality changes slowly as it is firmly rooted in tradition. In fact, I could argue that morality has changed little from a societal perspective over the course of human civilization. What has changed drastically over that time are individual values.
So, it is not that teenagers are immoral, if anything they are just as moral as anyone else. What is often different are their values and it seems to be human nature that children will test the values of their parents. I think it is the fallback of the older generations to assume that their "values" and their "morality" are the same.
Accusing someone of being immoral is akin to accusing them of being evil. I think people try to use the word immorality to combat what they see as a challenge to their values.
Yes. That, exactly. Thank you NJGOAT, I think the word "immoral" is definitely misused. "Values" is a word that would have been much more suitable for my post, at least.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Love it 
just to clear this up
