Ladeer&Co.

Most people in the world do not develop beyond stage four. They obey a law because the idea of law is well established and noble. They follow a certain standard because it is legitimized by their influencing authorities—their culture, religion, Bible, school, society, etc. For example people blindly accuse homosexual because Bible says it is wrong; terrorists strap bombs to their bodies because their leaders (who operate on higher level) exploit their nationalism.

When Kohlberg did this study on German troops who blindly carried out the Final Solution, these German (like the rest of mankind) had a clean conscience in doing what they were told to do. Surprising as it may sound, if you were a German soldier at that time and place, you might also do the exact same thing with a clean conscience.

In fact over the course of Church history Christians who always take pride in their Biblically found moral values have done plenty awful things in names of God. From being subjects of fierce persecutions, Christians after Constantine’s mandate conversion became the perpetrators of aggression and slaughtered countless Jewish women and children. Even in recent history the fact that Christians had been slow or almost non-existent in voicing social injustice proves the failure of their fourth-stage moral capacity. We need not touch Christian’s linkage to white supremacists movement such as Ku Klux Klan, the strongest proponent for the Civil Right movement Dr King did not fight for the Black because he was a Christian. He fought for the black because he was one of them.

(What moved humanity forward? I dare say the accumulation of our mistake in our history moves us along.)

I have had conversations with many people both within and outside of the Moody community; both American and Chinese. When I gave them the hypothetical scenario that, “will you speed on a highway if you are carrying your critically-wounded best friend to a hospital?” More than half of my surveyees answered against speeding even in such extreme condition. Some argued that the Bible explicitly commands us to obey the authority thus the breaking of any single law constitutes a sin. Others with weaker argument say that, “speed limit is imposed to protect us, you might kill someone else while trying to save your best friend’s life. I am sure your best friend wouldn’t want that!”

This post is not to dissect how the above arguments fall apart in scrutiny with the intention of the Bible (and they fall). In my seeing of two countries, four states, and many Christian organizations I can testify to you that most of the great thinkers and leaders for our government and religion are men (and women) of great wisdom.

This post however does want to point out how dangerous it is to constrain ourselves in the fourth stage moral development. How do we discern right from wrong? How do we make moral decisions? We have to go beyond the fourth stage.

In the fifth stage we start to acquire two sovereign principals: the inalienable rights of a person and the democratic process in upholding the right of all people. The husband has to steal the drug because the wife has a right to live. When the right and the legal responsibility conflict (they usually do not), one would expect the judge to weigh in the moral value while preserving the legal responsibility by sentencing a light punishment. At this stage things become blurry. Rules and actions are no longer completely right or completely wrong. Often time in our choosing we will take conflicting action. Luckily our judicial system is designed to have a human factor in weighing matters fairly.

Lastly and rarely we operate on the sixth stage of moral development called the Universal Principal. When the fifth stage calls for a democratic process in upholding the dignity and right for all people, it might sometimes fail. For example the majority sometimes would make a decision that is unfair to the minority (i.e. historically the literacy test and poll tax). The sixth stage operates in what is referred to as the “veil of ignorance.” The participant involved in a decision would make the decision without knowing which party the participant would eventually occupy. The pharmacist would decide if he should lower the price or not as if he would assume the identity of the husband or the wife—in other words the decision is made by thinking from every participant’s viewpoint. Simply put, “do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.” That is the golden rule for the sixth stage of moral development and strikingly similar to the teaching of the only perfect life ever lived. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”