Stages of Morality / Program Tweaks

[Beavah 205]

An ethical theorist named Kohlberg once defined the followin' Stages of Moral Development, and provided some evidence that kids and adults progressed through these until they reached some "stopping point" for each individual.

 

Pre-Conventional

1. Obedience/Punishment: I do it because if I dont, Ill be punished.

2. Self-interest: I do it because Ill get what I want.

 

Conventional

3. Conformity: I do it because Ill fit in.

4. Authority: I do it because its the rule, and rules are necessary for society.

 

Post-Conventional

5. Social Contract: The rules are flexible, together we do whats best for the general welfare.

6. Universal Principles: The rules are irrelevant. I do what is categorically right each time I make a choice.

 

?Possibly?

7. Transcendent Principles / Saintliness: All human law and morality are irrelevant. I serve God with my whole heart.

 

 

Seems to me that some of the insoluable arguments about program modifications and adaptations are based on people bein' at different levels on this chart, eh? If morality for you and your CO is based on Authority (Stage 4), then that's goin' to lead to one type of program for your kids. It'll effect how you view the Oath and Law, how you administer advancement requirements, how you feel about the uniform, etc. Follow da program. It is Authority .

 

That's goin' to be different from someone at Stage 5 or 6, eh? Or more properly, different for a CO that wants the example for the kids to be Stage 5 or 6, even if the Scouters in that program happen to disagree, eh? They're goin' to be tweakin' and modifyin' to serve the general welfare, or just ignorin' stuff to do what's categorically right. Da stuff is resource materials, not Authority.

 

So probably these discussions are doomed to go nowhere, eh? CO's are goin' to have different views on this. And that's their right. What concerns me is that sometimes Scouters don't know or understand their CO's view, and may be conveyin' something different to the kids.

 

I wonder if da Follow the Program crowd is representative of a Fundamentalist/Baptist tradition (Authority in Written Word)? I wonder if units like LongHaul's (green shirts) are Catholic (value tradition...)? Those of us from traditions emphasizin' personal interpretation and conscience might be the tweakers, eh?

[evmori 11]

Pre-Conventional = pre-teen

Conventional = teenager

Post-Conventional = adult

 

Sorta like stages of development. The more we experience, the more insight we have.

 

As long as "Tweakers" stay within the guidelines & regs of the BSA, no problem. Hey, I wear an "Untrainable" patch! It's a hoot explaining to Scouts who ask about it!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[OldGreyEagle 5]

If it's within the guidelines and regs of the BSA, should it be considered a tweak in the first place?

[Eamonn 61]

OK, I'll add my two cents.

I have never seen this Stages of Morality before.

When I read the BSA Vision Statement I read:

"...In the future Scouting will continue to

 

Offer young people responsible fun and adventure;

Instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law;

Train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership;

Serve America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program.

In the Mission Statement I read:

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

So looking over the "Stages of Morality which stage is the best fit?

"Pre-Conventional

1. Obedience/Punishment: I do it because if I dont, Ill be punished.

 

We might not like to admit it but a lot of what we do or don't do is from fear of the consequences.

2. Self-interest: I do it because Ill get what I want.?

Again a lot of what we do is based on "What's in it for me?"

 

Conventional

3. Conformity: I do it because Ill fit in.

 

I see this working for good and bad.

The group that gets into doing bad stuff because everyone is doing it and the group that does good stuff again because everyone is doing it.

4. Authority: I do it because its the rule, and rules are necessary for society.

 

We need to have rules/laws. But we also need to have a way of changing rules or laws that are unfair or don't work.

 

Post-Conventional

5. Social Contract: The rules are flexible, together we do whats best for the general welfare.

Sounds wonderful but who is the We? At some time doesn't this contract become the rule?

 

6. Universal Principles: The rules are irrelevant. I do what is categorically right each time I make a choice.

I wonder what if anything guides this choice?

 

7. Transcendent Principles / Saintliness: All human law and morality are irrelevant. I serve God with my whole heart.

Serving God is a good thing, but as we see in the middle east when people take their own interpretation of the word of God or groups take a certain interpretation they run the risk of not serving God.

 

As members of the BSA we take on the values of the Scout oath and Law.As Scouter's we work toward Serving America's communities and families with its quality, values-based program.

If we feel that we can't do this we are of course free to not belong to the BSA and not use the value based program.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

If it's within the guidelines and regs of the BSA, should it be considered a tweak in the first place?

 

Great question OGE!

 

Probably not but some would consider it such. Let's take the requirement discussed in the other thread as an example - pull ups. If a Scout does 1 pull up, in some units he needs to do 2 to show improvement. In some units it is the speed with which they are done. And some of the "do 2 to show improvement" units would tell you the "did them faster" units are wrong & visa versa.

 

Boy I hope that makes sense!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Gonzo1 10]

I'm sitting this one out.

Gonzo1

[dan 10]

I would say the discussion on the BSA program is because most people do not know the BSA program. Which is why they come and ask questions on a discussions forum!

I guess if we where all UCs we would just say nope the the adults in the unit are correct, suck it up and deal with it. After all we would never want a UC to help a unit run the BSA program correctly, would we? (Do you really want to know what I think about UCs? You are a prime example what is wrong with UCs and why they should be done away with.)

Some discussion is because many scouters are stuck in ruts and say this is the way we have all which done it.

Some discussion is because some scouters are dictators and not leaders.

If we all sat back and did not try to run the best BSA program that we can, have we done our best?

I am glad this got moved it issue and politics. I can be more blunt here.

[John-in-KC 311]

Not everything fits neatly into a hierarchy.

 

Take B-Ps concepts of the Scout Law. A Scout is...

 

It's not a societal norm he is simply conforming to.

 

I would hope the Scout doesn't obey the Scout Law because rules are needed for society.

 

Instead, I would hope the Scout or Scouter concsiously suscribes to a contract with society: I choose to accept and subscribe to these practices because they provide both a straight path as well as boundaries. The practices contain proven wisdom which I choose to accept.

 

I've been home for a few hours from an Eagle BOR. We asked the candidate an open ended self assessment in terms of the Oath and Law. Then we asked him an open ended "what can you do to address your own perceived weaknesses?" That's the goal we're looking for: Critical thinking, considered use of discretion, but the clear and certain knowledge of what "right looks like."

 

If we take each boy as he comes, look at him as an individual, and help him address those things he needs to change and grow, then we've done the best and most we can do.

 

Good night! (it's 2AM here in Flyover Country)

[Trevorum 24]

 

Beav, you've posed an interesting twist on Kohlbergs Stages. As with all such models, there are some serious flaws in his construct. However, one of my favorite applications is towards religion. What is the source of personal ethics: fear of punishment? (hell) desire for reward? (heaven) social order? something else?

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Trev,

 

In meeting the Scouting Aim of Character Development, I think the Cub Scout motto is the most appropo in the movements' development of a personal ethic:

 

"Do your best."

 

I don't want to raise up young men who are absolute conformists. I don't want to raise up young men who live in fear.

 

I want to raise up young men who seek the good and the greater good, and then pursue it through their lives with passion.

 

I want the generation behind mine to be able to use their heads and their hearts ... to know that the right thing is not the convenient thing ... to know that the right thing isn't always the technically correct thing.

 

At the end of the day, giving our best is as much and as little as we can do.

[Aquila calva 10]

Who is Kohlberg?

 

From Wikipedia....

 

"Lawrence Kohlberg (October 25, 1927 January 19, 1987) was an American psychologist......

 

Lawrence Kohlberg grew up in a wealthy family and attended Phillips Academy, a private and renowned high school. During World War II, after finishing his high school education, he enlisted and became an engineer on a freighter. On that ship he and his shipmates decided to aid Jews attempting to escape from Europe to Palestine. They accomplished this by smuggling them in banana crates that were secretly beds, fooling government inspectors that formed the British blockade to the region.

 

.....

 

Kohlberg contracted a tropical disease in 1971 while doing cross-cultural work in Belize. As a result, he struggled with depression and physical pain for the following 16 years. On January 19, 1987, he requested a day of leave from the Massachusetts hospital where he was being treated, drove to the coast, and committed suicide by drowning himself in the Boston Harbor. He was 59 years old."

 

 

[Hunt 11]

The problem I have with these stages is that it's pretty easy to use rhetoric to make a person who is at this level:

 

2. Self-interest: I do it because Ill get what I want.

 

seem like he is at this level:

 

6. Universal Principles: The rules are irrelevant. I do what is categorically right each time I make a choice.

 

It's just a matter of stating the Universal Principles in a way that line up with what he wants to do. I think reigning in that kind of cleverness is one of the reasons we have to have some rules.

[packsaddle 753]

The problem I see with these schemes is that it is as if after application of terms to complex concepts, the complexity is thereby explained. It isn't.

In some ways it does additional disservice to us by allowing us to feel comfortable when we really have no reason to. Kohlberg's stages amounts to a hypothesis to explain certain aspects of our behavior. It is being tested right here in this thread.

A null hypothesis would state that we do not all conform to the stages as stated. I think it is safe to say that there is insufficient evidence at this time to reject the null and accept Kohlberg.

But it does give us something to think about.