Just ran across this link

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
Kohlberg describes the following.

Level I. Preconventional Morality
Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.
Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange.
Level II. Conventional Morality
Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships.
Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order.
Level III. Postconventional Morality
Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights.
Stage 6: Universal Principles.

Summary

At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one’s own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others.

At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole.

At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just.

That’s fascinating. Yes, the framework I personally identify with is definitely level 6. I see the foundation as comprising a set of human rights shared by a community. Then an ethical/moral framework has to be one that preserves those rights and, where they come into conflict, resolves that conflict on a just, previously determined basis (which is also a right). Finally that conflict resolution is codified into a set of laws and assumed remedies.

So for me:

  • Outcomes fall where they may, provided rights of all parties were preserved or justly resolved
  • Laws/rules should only be applied in resolving conflicts
  • Intent is not very important, except perhaps in resolving conflicts
  • Higher purpose is no justification for anything. My higher purpose is quite possibly your worst nightmare.

We can even restate the Golden Rule as: “Accord to others all of those human rights and privileges you would like them to accord to you.”

Unfortunately, the principles (and the agreed set of human rights) are not universal. It requires a high degree of homogeneity before it really works. For example, I do not accept and I will not grant to Aborigines, Muslims and various other foreign nationals the rights to conduct their lives as they would or did in earlier times or in other places. I will grant them all the rights I expect for myself, but not extra rights that they may demand even if they are prepared to grant me those same rights. I also demand that they yield to the same conflict resolution principles that I do, that is, the same laws and the same principles of justice.