I see no reason to think that any human being ever does "move from an orientation of selfishness". It is certainly not a requirement for the stages he defines. Those in the 'pre-conventional' stages of moral developement react to authority because it usually physically hurts not to. Those in the 'conventional' stages of moral development have come to see that not only can you avoid swats and get candies by acting in certain ways but you can actually encourage more favorable, and certainly more predictable, relationships with others, by adhereing to accepted norms of interaction, even though the immediate gratification is not as great as it might be if you just grabbed the candy and ran. And those individuals acting at the 'post-conventional' stage of moral development have come to see the abstraction of 'feeling good about themselves' as a value greater than current physical comfort and in some extremes even greater than physical life itself.
However; in no case are they motivated by anything but selfishness. The only difference between pre-conventional morality and post-conventional morality is what they define as 'good for me, myself and I'.
So what? So the only way you ever change anyone's 'moral values' is by changing what they define as "good for me".
And "What's in it for me?" is the one and only question that has to be satisfactorily answered by any advocate of any action because it is the only question anyone ever really asks, even the saints.
0
0
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 1