There's more?

I would hate for anyone to think that I thought up the framework behind our little thought experiment of the past couple of posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, these stages of moral reasoning that have been described are the results of the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and his associates at Harvard University. Kohlberg developed this framework, this taxonomy, in the 1970s. It's still applicable today, if for no other reason than it give us all an independent and understandable (that is, neutral) framework to discuss what too often become hotly debated, religious issues. What we should realize by now is that there is morality beyond religion. Yes, religionists and atheists need a way to agree.

Of course, there is one more stage to Kohlberg's model. We ended with unjust laws the last time, but the question that that idea raises is what do you do when the laws don't work at all. His sixth, and final, stage in the taxonomy, then, addresses the idea of moral principles; that is, clearly formulated statements of behavior that are capable of addressing any and every morally relevant situation. What would such a principle look like? Fortunately, we all already know.

You will recall that the notion of reciprocity; that is, of give-and-take, of an acceptable back-and-forth between the parties involved; lies at the root of his whole framework. That means there should be universal principles of reciprocity that any and everyone should be able to agree to, once they recognize their value. The ultimate expression of reciprocity is known to most of us as "the Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you). What is interesting about this "rule" is that it is the only statement, the only tenant, the only doctrine, the only belief (if you will), that is common to every single religion in the world. The Christians, the Moslems, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Ba'hai, the Zoastrians, the you-name-them have some form of this statement as one of their core beliefs. It is the "Golden Rule", oddly enough, that unites all religions, it is their common core of belief.

I know, I know, the non-believers, the atheists and agnostics among you are all saying, "that's fine and good ... for them ... but what about us?" I'm glad you asked. One of the most influential philosophers of the Western world, Immanuel Kant, formulated a similar principle in his Critique of Practical Reason, where he writes that we should "act according to those principles which we desire should be raised to universal principles". In other words, act/behave however you would like that anyone anywhere at anytime should be allowed to act/behave ... or, if you can do it, anybody should be allowed to do it.

Who would have thought? It fits ... all the way around.