Cognitive Complexity and Ethical Development: A Suprareligious Moral Paradigm
Note: This essay was first published in TELICOM, the journal of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry in February, 2001 (Volume XV, No. 4).
It has often been stated that more evil had been done in the name of God than for any other cause. Incongruous as this statement may be with the expressed ideals of most major world religions, there is indeed merit in the assertion. One need only consider the Crusades, to give but one example, to see the potential for perverting the human desire to achieve what is "good" into a bloody and futile act.
One of the key catalysts to this misdirection of positive impulses has been the reliance of organized religions on two basic organizational principles: 1) the establishment of a set of “rules," according to which human beings are measured; and 2) a hierarchy designed to interpret and somehow ‘enforce' those rules, whether physical or other forms of punishment, or by the application of societal pressures designed to elicit conformity. The combined religious-societal structures, and their attendant inducements to conformity and consequences for non-conformity, are sometimes described as systems of ‘morality.’ They are, essentially, a complex set of rules, with multiple levels of reward and punishment, aimed at regulating the behavior of those in a particular society.
Unfortunately, such systems are inherently flawed, because they rely on the human imposition and interpretation of whatever set of 'rules' is established. When one realizes this, one is tempted to draw the same conclusion as Richard Clews does in his opinion piece in the present issue of Telicom, i.e., that all systems of morality are entirely arbitrary artifacts of societal organization, and, as such, are intellectually bankrupt, having no independent logic or basis in natural order.
And yet religious expression has been a spontaneous aspect of every civilization humans have created - indeed, religious expression far predates mankind's organization into large-scale, identifiable civilizations. In grade school, we were taught that civilization was defined by three elements: 1. surplus of food, 2. division of labor, and 3. the building of cities. I would add to this list Religious Expression, and, in fact, suggest that it should have the status of a prerequisite to the first three criteria.
Why should beings that have invested so much evolutionary capital in the development of higher cognitive functions be so devoted to religious or ethical systems? What is it about our intellectual divergence from other animals that leads to an innate need for a system of good and evil? Or, perhaps more accurately, what does our intellect allow us to perceive about the absolute order of nature that leads to the establishment of ethical systems?
Ethical systems have their origins in the distinctly human ability to make reasoned choices. It is this human ability that forces us to establish a framework within which we make decisions. Essentially, we must develop our own ethical world - create ourselves, in effect. As Charles Kammer observes:
This self-creation, then, is the essence of morality. We can make decisions about our own nature, what we are and what we will become. Morality is thus the embodying of particular values and options in ourselves and in our communities. Granted, not all our values and options are directly moral (e.g., health, wealth, beauty, control of the environment); still all these values and options, to the extent that they determine the shape of our humanity, have moral effects...According to the above understanding of morality, we are all, inescapably, moral persons. We must all choose, and choose continually, what we are and what we will do.
If we accept that we are ethical beings by nature, we are inevitably led to compare our ethical nature with the other quality that sets us apart from other members of the animal kingdom: our intellect. A discussion of the extraordinary physical investment that humans have made in the development of our brains is beyond the scope of this writing. It is sufficient to state that our ability to think, plan, and contemplate the nature of our very existence is inextricably linked with the expression of our will - the expression of choice. Thus, as thinking beings, we are ethical beings.
The cognitive/ethical connection does not, however, suggest any proportional correlation between these two facets of human experience. As with all human abilities, ethical sense and intellectual prowess are distributed unevenly in the population. Of the two, intelligence has clearly been studied more objectively, however imperfectly. The objective study of ethical sense, however, has been historically hobbled by arbitrary systems of religious rules. If we attempt to strip away the artifacts of religious dogma, we may begin to see that human beings respond to ethical challenges on a scale, much as they respond to cognitive challenges. In fact, one might even suggest that ethical intelligence be added to Gardner's system of nine "multiple intelligences.”
The labeling of ethical sense as a form of intelligence has merit beyond the simple association of ethics and intelligence as defining human traits. The most important commonality between the measurement of ethical intelligence and more familiar cognitive abilities is the concept of levels of complexity. In effect, the measurement of both ethical and cognitive ability is dependent upon facility with and command of levels of complexity. To a considerable degree, cognitive complexity and ethical complexity draw upon the same higher order functions, though it may be said that ethical complexity typically presents challenges that do not readily lend themselves to objective "right or wrong” solutions. This is perhaps why some highly intelligent people remain relatively undeveloped in an ethical sense; they develop a mastery of mathematical or other systems in the pursuit of order, while exhibiting a poor tolerance of the unresolved complexity of difficult ethical challenges.
In 1990, Ernest McDaniel and Chris Lawrence of Purdue University developed a graduated complexity model in their monograph, Levels of Cognitive Complexity: An Approach to the Measurement of Thinking (New York: Springer-Verlag). Their approach presented a five-level system of cognitive complexity, applied to essays written by students on a given theme. In analyzing the writing samples, the authors attempted to identify and characterize specific “markers" or organizational principles suggestive of a certain level of cognitive ability. The levels that McDaniel and Lawrence defined are the following:
Levels of Cognitive Complexity
Level 1: Unilateral Descriptions
The student: Simplifies the situation. Focuses on one idea or argument. Does not identify alternatives. Brings in no new information, meaning, or perspectives. Makes good/bad and either/or assertions. Appeals to authority or simple rules. Simply paraphrases, restates or repeats information.
Level 2: Simplistic Alternatives
Identifies simple and obvious conflicts, but the conflicts are not pursued or analyzed. Develops a position by dismissing or ignoring one alternative and supporting the other with assertions and simple explanations rather than by making a deeper assessment of the situation.
Level 3: Emergent Complexity
The Student: Identifies more than one possible explanation or perspective. Establishes and preserves complexity. Introduces new elements. Supports position through comparisons and simple causal statements.
Level 4: Broad Interpretations
The student: Uses broad ideas to help define and interpret the situation. Manipulates ideas within the perspective established. Has a clearly recognizable explanatory theme. Integrates ideas into “subassemblies,” each supporting a component of the explanation.
Level 5: Integrated Analysis
The student: Restructures or reconceptualizes the situation and approaches the problem from a new point of view. Constructs a network of cause-and-effect relationships. Integrates and extrapolates ideas. Arrives at new interpretations by analogy, application of principles, generalizations, and world knowledge. Constructs an organizing framework, sketches connections, and predicts consequences.
Proponents of psychometrics according to the models of Binet or Wechsler might criticize the above system as too subjective and difficult to quantify. It is, of course, true that the above five levels do not yield a convenient bell curve, nor do they allow for fine gradations or extreme levels of selectivity. Their subjective nature, significantly, results at least in part from the catalyst used to generate the writing samples in question.
Students were asked to interpret two presentations, one on the Holocaust, and another entitled The Bomb Factories (detailing a nuclear arms facility in the American west that was important to Cold War weapons production, but which later caused extreme environmental damage, and severe health problems among local residents and plant workers). In each presentation, considerable details of societal and historical factors were presented along with the documentation of the tragedies associated with both scenarios.
The most important aspect of the above topics is that each poses a complex ethical challenge. This unintended dimension of the project did indeed produce responses that may be categorized according to levels of “cognitive complexity,” as defined by the authors, but in addition to this, the responses may be interpreted along a continuum of ethical development. Ethical complexity and cognitive complexity, then, share at least some common ground.
To be sure, McDaniel and Lawrence were not the first to suggest multiple levels of cognitive development. The way a person's conceptual system “mediates the perception of and interactions with the environment” was explored by Schroder, Driver and Streufert (1967). Their study outlined three broad levels of integrative complexity:
Low Integration Index
• Categorical, black & white thinking
• Minimization of conflict.
• The anchoring of behavior in external conditions.
• Abrupt and compartmentalized shifts in categorizations.
Moderate Integration Index:
• Movement away from absolutism.
• Emergence of primitive internal causation.
• Ambivalence and lack of consistency in decision making.
• Dominance of one perceptual organization over alternative organizations.
• Pushing against present or alternative schemas.
High Integration Index:
• A less deterministic system.
• The simultaneous perception of the situation from two points of view.
• Greater use of internal processes in generating possibilities.
It is not difficult to see that McDaniel and Lawrence have elaborated a five-level system based upon the skeletal three-level scheme detailed above.
Returning to the McDaniel/Lawrence study, let us examine some sample responses from one of the exercises. The presentation The Holocaust consisted of a 14-minute video tape and several pages of printed material on the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazi regime (the video was a greatly condensed version of Genocide, a one-hour film produced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center). Background is provided on the economic hardships leading up to Hitler’s selection of the Jews as a scapegoat, and there are scenes of life in the ghettos, the murder of Jewish civilians behind the lines and the atrocities of the concentration camps. Following the presentation, students were asked to respond in writing to five questions giving them the opportunity to organize and interpret the material presented. One such question was, “Could a tragedy like this one happen again?”
Scoring the response was relatively easy at the lower levels, but more difficult at the upper levels. The following exemplars illustrate responses at each of the five McDaniel/Lawrence levels:
Level One (Simple Absolutes)
"No, I don’t believe this will ever happen again. I’m sure that if something as inhumane as this started to happen the U.S. will step in and stop it.”
Two (Simple Causal Network)
"I think people today value human life more. If this did reoccur, I believe it would be stopped once someone knew what was going on.”
Level Three (Multiple Causal Network)
"I think that the memory of Holocaust will live forever, and people will be on the look-out for rising leaders such as Hitler. Foreign countries would probably intervene much quicker if a situation like this happened again.”
Level Four (Causal Network with Subassemblies)
“No, I don’t believe a tragedy on this scale could happen again. There are too many checks and balances between countries and their citizens for this to happen again. No country is faced with the same problems Germany was faced with back then. (At least not to the same extent.) There is no reason for this to happen again. I also believe that hindsight will help our (and other nations’) foresight. I don't believe that any nation would stand for this happening again.”
Level Five (Synthesis and Analogy)
"As an eternal optimist, I hope that this could never happen again. However, what has been done in 40 years to change humans from allowing another Holocaust from happening? The same reasons of fear, depression, and prejudice have not been taken away from our society. People always want someone to blame. Whether it is the witches in Salem during the 1700s or Communists in Washington during the 1950s, we often take our fears and act viciously because of them. Until we are truly able to accept different people and ideas, there will still be the slight possibility that it could happen again.”
With very little adjustment, we may cast the levels of “cognitive complexity” as levels of “ethical development." In some cases, there is almost an exact correlation.
Levels of Ethical Development
Pre-Ethical State
Choices are made entirely on the basis of self-gratification or physical need. Infants and very young children are representative of this stage.
Level One: Absolutism
Ethical decisions are framed in an inflexible system of right/wrong, according to a set of Rules dictated by Authority. "Good" is defined by the degree to which one conforms to the set Rules.
Level Two: Anti-Absolutism
A stage marked by rebellion against the imposed Rules. Imperfections or inconsistencies in the established set or Rules or uneven enforcement or interpretation by Authority leads to a rejection of individual Rules, or, in extreme cases, a complete rejection of the entire system of Rules. If right/wrong or good/bad cannot be defined absolutely, there must be no validity in those concepts, and consequently, nothing is inherently right or wrong. Temporary (or, in rare cases, permanent) reversion to the Pre-Ethical State is possible.
Level Three: Emergent Relativism
Simple alternatives to strict absolutism are developed. The concept of a decision being “more wrong” than another emerges. The possibility that Rules may be in opposition to that which is "good" is first considered. The ability to consider other points of view emerges.
Level Four: Multiple Perspectives
The ability to perceive an ethical question from multiple perspectives simultaneously is exhibited. Analysis and comparison of competing points of view. Willingness to tolerate dissonance between value systems.
Level Five: Ethical Synthesis
Multiple simultaneous ethical perspectives are examined and recombined according to broader, overarching principles. Harmony is sought between dissonant value systems. An understanding of "the good,” independent of external rules, is evident. Elements of divergent value systems are viewed as ethical subsystems supporting a broader concept of “the good."
As with the cognitive levels of McDaniel and Lawrence, examples of the lower levels are relatively easy to document. Advancement to levels four and five are sufficiently rare to make their observation less common and their characterization more problematic. Interestingly, the Levels of Ethical Development tend to coincide with levels of cognitive development in children and adolescents (at least in levels One through Three). However, one may find examples of every Level in all age groups. And, while the correlation between intelligence and ethical development has yet to be documented, there are plausible impediments to ethical development to the highest levels among those of below average intelligence.
It should be noted that this essay has not been offered to invalidate or challenge the role of organized religions. In fact, the author asserts that the ethical systems represented by major world religions provide an important framework within which we may better understand our roles as inherently ethical beings. Rather than as a substitute for religion, the Levels of Ethical Development are offered as a suprareligious scale upon which we may plot our level of ethical advancement. Where organized religion is a vehicle for ethical development, it may be said to further the cause of the good. Where organized religion is in opposition to ethical development, it may be seen as an impediment. In either case, the role of the individual human being in the development of ethical self-awareness and advancement is paramount.
As with all scales attempting to measure subjective qualities of the human experience, the Levels of Ethical Development are not perfect or absolute, nor do they take into account those extraordinary human beings who possess abilities transcending the measurements or definitions offered. Such individuals light the way to our potential as a species, moving beyond what Kammer calls our fundamental humanity (i.e., our human needs, representing the physical reality from which we build our humanity), into the realm of our potential humanity:
Our fundamental humanity is a reflection of the structure of our common humanity and so serves as a basis for a shared, common ethic such as that described in the Universal Covenant on Human Rights. Our potential humanity, by contrast, presents itself as a question, an opening onto the future. What we can and should become is not self-evident.
This question is what drives us to seek an ethical framework for our behavior, for our very existence. As we contemplate the future, we must decide what we wish that future to bring, for us and for those who come after us. If that future is to be one of tolerance and harmony, we must approach the understanding of that ethical framework as a synthesis of principles that affirm humanity and its relation to Nature, or God, or the Cosmos, depending upon one’s understanding of the Eternal or the Universal. Such a synthesis is, of course, a daunting challenge, but it is one that we must face. It is our very nature to do so.
It has often been stated that more evil had been done in the name of God than for any other cause. Incongruous as this statement may be with the expressed ideals of most major world religions, there is indeed merit in the assertion. One need only consider the Crusades, to give but one example, to see the potential for perverting the human desire to achieve what is "good" into a bloody and futile act.
One of the key catalysts to this misdirection of positive impulses has been the reliance of organized religions on two basic organizational principles: 1) the establishment of a set of “rules," according to which human beings are measured; and 2) a hierarchy designed to interpret and somehow ‘enforce' those rules, whether physical or other forms of punishment, or by the application of societal pressures designed to elicit conformity. The combined religious-societal structures, and their attendant inducements to conformity and consequences for non-conformity, are sometimes described as systems of ‘morality.’ They are, essentially, a complex set of rules, with multiple levels of reward and punishment, aimed at regulating the behavior of those in a particular society.
Unfortunately, such systems are inherently flawed, because they rely on the human imposition and interpretation of whatever set of 'rules' is established. When one realizes this, one is tempted to draw the same conclusion as Richard Clews does in his opinion piece in the present issue of Telicom, i.e., that all systems of morality are entirely arbitrary artifacts of societal organization, and, as such, are intellectually bankrupt, having no independent logic or basis in natural order.
And yet religious expression has been a spontaneous aspect of every civilization humans have created - indeed, religious expression far predates mankind's organization into large-scale, identifiable civilizations. In grade school, we were taught that civilization was defined by three elements: 1. surplus of food, 2. division of labor, and 3. the building of cities. I would add to this list Religious Expression, and, in fact, suggest that it should have the status of a prerequisite to the first three criteria.
Why should beings that have invested so much evolutionary capital in the development of higher cognitive functions be so devoted to religious or ethical systems? What is it about our intellectual divergence from other animals that leads to an innate need for a system of good and evil? Or, perhaps more accurately, what does our intellect allow us to perceive about the absolute order of nature that leads to the establishment of ethical systems?
Ethical systems have their origins in the distinctly human ability to make reasoned choices. It is this human ability that forces us to establish a framework within which we make decisions. Essentially, we must develop our own ethical world - create ourselves, in effect. As Charles Kammer observes:
This self-creation, then, is the essence of morality. We can make decisions about our own nature, what we are and what we will become. Morality is thus the embodying of particular values and options in ourselves and in our communities. Granted, not all our values and options are directly moral (e.g., health, wealth, beauty, control of the environment); still all these values and options, to the extent that they determine the shape of our humanity, have moral effects...According to the above understanding of morality, we are all, inescapably, moral persons. We must all choose, and choose continually, what we are and what we will do.
If we accept that we are ethical beings by nature, we are inevitably led to compare our ethical nature with the other quality that sets us apart from other members of the animal kingdom: our intellect. A discussion of the extraordinary physical investment that humans have made in the development of our brains is beyond the scope of this writing. It is sufficient to state that our ability to think, plan, and contemplate the nature of our very existence is inextricably linked with the expression of our will - the expression of choice. Thus, as thinking beings, we are ethical beings.
The cognitive/ethical connection does not, however, suggest any proportional correlation between these two facets of human experience. As with all human abilities, ethical sense and intellectual prowess are distributed unevenly in the population. Of the two, intelligence has clearly been studied more objectively, however imperfectly. The objective study of ethical sense, however, has been historically hobbled by arbitrary systems of religious rules. If we attempt to strip away the artifacts of religious dogma, we may begin to see that human beings respond to ethical challenges on a scale, much as they respond to cognitive challenges. In fact, one might even suggest that ethical intelligence be added to Gardner's system of nine "multiple intelligences.”
The labeling of ethical sense as a form of intelligence has merit beyond the simple association of ethics and intelligence as defining human traits. The most important commonality between the measurement of ethical intelligence and more familiar cognitive abilities is the concept of levels of complexity. In effect, the measurement of both ethical and cognitive ability is dependent upon facility with and command of levels of complexity. To a considerable degree, cognitive complexity and ethical complexity draw upon the same higher order functions, though it may be said that ethical complexity typically presents challenges that do not readily lend themselves to objective "right or wrong” solutions. This is perhaps why some highly intelligent people remain relatively undeveloped in an ethical sense; they develop a mastery of mathematical or other systems in the pursuit of order, while exhibiting a poor tolerance of the unresolved complexity of difficult ethical challenges.
In 1990, Ernest McDaniel and Chris Lawrence of Purdue University developed a graduated complexity model in their monograph, Levels of Cognitive Complexity: An Approach to the Measurement of Thinking (New York: Springer-Verlag). Their approach presented a five-level system of cognitive complexity, applied to essays written by students on a given theme. In analyzing the writing samples, the authors attempted to identify and characterize specific “markers" or organizational principles suggestive of a certain level of cognitive ability. The levels that McDaniel and Lawrence defined are the following:
Levels of Cognitive Complexity
Level 1: Unilateral Descriptions
The student: Simplifies the situation. Focuses on one idea or argument. Does not identify alternatives. Brings in no new information, meaning, or perspectives. Makes good/bad and either/or assertions. Appeals to authority or simple rules. Simply paraphrases, restates or repeats information.
Level 2: Simplistic Alternatives
Identifies simple and obvious conflicts, but the conflicts are not pursued or analyzed. Develops a position by dismissing or ignoring one alternative and supporting the other with assertions and simple explanations rather than by making a deeper assessment of the situation.
Level 3: Emergent Complexity
The Student: Identifies more than one possible explanation or perspective. Establishes and preserves complexity. Introduces new elements. Supports position through comparisons and simple causal statements.
Level 4: Broad Interpretations
The student: Uses broad ideas to help define and interpret the situation. Manipulates ideas within the perspective established. Has a clearly recognizable explanatory theme. Integrates ideas into “subassemblies,” each supporting a component of the explanation.
Level 5: Integrated Analysis
The student: Restructures or reconceptualizes the situation and approaches the problem from a new point of view. Constructs a network of cause-and-effect relationships. Integrates and extrapolates ideas. Arrives at new interpretations by analogy, application of principles, generalizations, and world knowledge. Constructs an organizing framework, sketches connections, and predicts consequences.
Proponents of psychometrics according to the models of Binet or Wechsler might criticize the above system as too subjective and difficult to quantify. It is, of course, true that the above five levels do not yield a convenient bell curve, nor do they allow for fine gradations or extreme levels of selectivity. Their subjective nature, significantly, results at least in part from the catalyst used to generate the writing samples in question.
Students were asked to interpret two presentations, one on the Holocaust, and another entitled The Bomb Factories (detailing a nuclear arms facility in the American west that was important to Cold War weapons production, but which later caused extreme environmental damage, and severe health problems among local residents and plant workers). In each presentation, considerable details of societal and historical factors were presented along with the documentation of the tragedies associated with both scenarios.
The most important aspect of the above topics is that each poses a complex ethical challenge. This unintended dimension of the project did indeed produce responses that may be categorized according to levels of “cognitive complexity,” as defined by the authors, but in addition to this, the responses may be interpreted along a continuum of ethical development. Ethical complexity and cognitive complexity, then, share at least some common ground.
To be sure, McDaniel and Lawrence were not the first to suggest multiple levels of cognitive development. The way a person's conceptual system “mediates the perception of and interactions with the environment” was explored by Schroder, Driver and Streufert (1967). Their study outlined three broad levels of integrative complexity:
Low Integration Index
• Categorical, black & white thinking
• Minimization of conflict.
• The anchoring of behavior in external conditions.
• Abrupt and compartmentalized shifts in categorizations.
Moderate Integration Index:
• Movement away from absolutism.
• Emergence of primitive internal causation.
• Ambivalence and lack of consistency in decision making.
• Dominance of one perceptual organization over alternative organizations.
• Pushing against present or alternative schemas.
High Integration Index:
• A less deterministic system.
• The simultaneous perception of the situation from two points of view.
• Greater use of internal processes in generating possibilities.
It is not difficult to see that McDaniel and Lawrence have elaborated a five-level system based upon the skeletal three-level scheme detailed above.
Returning to the McDaniel/Lawrence study, let us examine some sample responses from one of the exercises. The presentation The Holocaust consisted of a 14-minute video tape and several pages of printed material on the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazi regime (the video was a greatly condensed version of Genocide, a one-hour film produced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center). Background is provided on the economic hardships leading up to Hitler’s selection of the Jews as a scapegoat, and there are scenes of life in the ghettos, the murder of Jewish civilians behind the lines and the atrocities of the concentration camps. Following the presentation, students were asked to respond in writing to five questions giving them the opportunity to organize and interpret the material presented. One such question was, “Could a tragedy like this one happen again?”
Scoring the response was relatively easy at the lower levels, but more difficult at the upper levels. The following exemplars illustrate responses at each of the five McDaniel/Lawrence levels:
Level One (Simple Absolutes)
"No, I don’t believe this will ever happen again. I’m sure that if something as inhumane as this started to happen the U.S. will step in and stop it.”
Two (Simple Causal Network)
"I think people today value human life more. If this did reoccur, I believe it would be stopped once someone knew what was going on.”
Level Three (Multiple Causal Network)
"I think that the memory of Holocaust will live forever, and people will be on the look-out for rising leaders such as Hitler. Foreign countries would probably intervene much quicker if a situation like this happened again.”
Level Four (Causal Network with Subassemblies)
“No, I don’t believe a tragedy on this scale could happen again. There are too many checks and balances between countries and their citizens for this to happen again. No country is faced with the same problems Germany was faced with back then. (At least not to the same extent.) There is no reason for this to happen again. I also believe that hindsight will help our (and other nations’) foresight. I don't believe that any nation would stand for this happening again.”
Level Five (Synthesis and Analogy)
"As an eternal optimist, I hope that this could never happen again. However, what has been done in 40 years to change humans from allowing another Holocaust from happening? The same reasons of fear, depression, and prejudice have not been taken away from our society. People always want someone to blame. Whether it is the witches in Salem during the 1700s or Communists in Washington during the 1950s, we often take our fears and act viciously because of them. Until we are truly able to accept different people and ideas, there will still be the slight possibility that it could happen again.”
With very little adjustment, we may cast the levels of “cognitive complexity” as levels of “ethical development." In some cases, there is almost an exact correlation.
Levels of Ethical Development
Pre-Ethical State
Choices are made entirely on the basis of self-gratification or physical need. Infants and very young children are representative of this stage.
Level One: Absolutism
Ethical decisions are framed in an inflexible system of right/wrong, according to a set of Rules dictated by Authority. "Good" is defined by the degree to which one conforms to the set Rules.
Level Two: Anti-Absolutism
A stage marked by rebellion against the imposed Rules. Imperfections or inconsistencies in the established set or Rules or uneven enforcement or interpretation by Authority leads to a rejection of individual Rules, or, in extreme cases, a complete rejection of the entire system of Rules. If right/wrong or good/bad cannot be defined absolutely, there must be no validity in those concepts, and consequently, nothing is inherently right or wrong. Temporary (or, in rare cases, permanent) reversion to the Pre-Ethical State is possible.
Level Three: Emergent Relativism
Simple alternatives to strict absolutism are developed. The concept of a decision being “more wrong” than another emerges. The possibility that Rules may be in opposition to that which is "good" is first considered. The ability to consider other points of view emerges.
Level Four: Multiple Perspectives
The ability to perceive an ethical question from multiple perspectives simultaneously is exhibited. Analysis and comparison of competing points of view. Willingness to tolerate dissonance between value systems.
Level Five: Ethical Synthesis
Multiple simultaneous ethical perspectives are examined and recombined according to broader, overarching principles. Harmony is sought between dissonant value systems. An understanding of "the good,” independent of external rules, is evident. Elements of divergent value systems are viewed as ethical subsystems supporting a broader concept of “the good."
As with the cognitive levels of McDaniel and Lawrence, examples of the lower levels are relatively easy to document. Advancement to levels four and five are sufficiently rare to make their observation less common and their characterization more problematic. Interestingly, the Levels of Ethical Development tend to coincide with levels of cognitive development in children and adolescents (at least in levels One through Three). However, one may find examples of every Level in all age groups. And, while the correlation between intelligence and ethical development has yet to be documented, there are plausible impediments to ethical development to the highest levels among those of below average intelligence.
It should be noted that this essay has not been offered to invalidate or challenge the role of organized religions. In fact, the author asserts that the ethical systems represented by major world religions provide an important framework within which we may better understand our roles as inherently ethical beings. Rather than as a substitute for religion, the Levels of Ethical Development are offered as a suprareligious scale upon which we may plot our level of ethical advancement. Where organized religion is a vehicle for ethical development, it may be said to further the cause of the good. Where organized religion is in opposition to ethical development, it may be seen as an impediment. In either case, the role of the individual human being in the development of ethical self-awareness and advancement is paramount.
As with all scales attempting to measure subjective qualities of the human experience, the Levels of Ethical Development are not perfect or absolute, nor do they take into account those extraordinary human beings who possess abilities transcending the measurements or definitions offered. Such individuals light the way to our potential as a species, moving beyond what Kammer calls our fundamental humanity (i.e., our human needs, representing the physical reality from which we build our humanity), into the realm of our potential humanity:
Our fundamental humanity is a reflection of the structure of our common humanity and so serves as a basis for a shared, common ethic such as that described in the Universal Covenant on Human Rights. Our potential humanity, by contrast, presents itself as a question, an opening onto the future. What we can and should become is not self-evident.
This question is what drives us to seek an ethical framework for our behavior, for our very existence. As we contemplate the future, we must decide what we wish that future to bring, for us and for those who come after us. If that future is to be one of tolerance and harmony, we must approach the understanding of that ethical framework as a synthesis of principles that affirm humanity and its relation to Nature, or God, or the Cosmos, depending upon one’s understanding of the Eternal or the Universal. Such a synthesis is, of course, a daunting challenge, but it is one that we must face. It is our very nature to do so.
posted by Patrick O'Shea | 12:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home