/lit/ - Literature

>>6484708
>>6484809

I'll do both of you one better.

During the 70's, we discovered this level of moral thinking, empiraclly, through Kohlberg's stages.

One of the disturbing revelations was that men were far more skewed to level 4, while most women were clustered around level 3.

Granted, neither gender had many representatives at level 5 and 6, but Kohlberg, like Hegel, stated that level 4 ethics is required for civilization.

>We live in a world of strangers
>Therefore, we need a formal ethical system to deal with strangers
>But only Law and Order provides that formalized Ethics.

Again, there is empirical proof to demonstrate Post-Modernism extends from being incapable of understanding formal systems, but it would undermine nearly all of academia in the process.

And it would effectively make prominent Anarchist thinkers like Hedges and Chomsky, into demagogues instead of 'critical thinkers.'

>>6462107

Honestly. It took a very long time, but I found the answer.

First. Brush up on Kohlberg's stages of Moral Development. Unlike Post-Modernism, it has a strong empirical backing, and accurately explains the level of moral functioning people of.

Furthermore, Kohlberg's moral stages are content neutral, context dependent. Meaning people of two different culture will operate in the same contexts, but have different moral codes.

Post-Modern ethos emerged because society openly tolerates level 3 moral thinking, where-as the threshold was normally set at level 4.

So the obsession of genitalia/skin color/sexual desire is actually moralizing at a lower level. It is irrelevant as to WHAT is actually being done, but WHO is doing what.

>It doesn't matter if I should enforce a law.
>The question is, 'do I like him?'
>See American Psycho for what life is like at Kohlberg 3.
>"I just want to be liked," because being liked is the highest stage of moral thinking. (Level 3)

Where-as the traditional dumbass conservative follows an ethics he cannot understand, Post-Modernism are incapable of following ANY kind of ethics.

>So even though Conseratives don't understand things why things like Due Process, Social Security, or Marriage are good
>This is where 'White Southern Democrats' came from.
>Post-Modernism doesn't understand, but refuses to admit that not understanding is a bad thing.

Finally, we can EMPIRICALLY show that Post-Modernists have a much lower capacity for understanding moral thinking, by issuing the test to populations, and comparing them with the general population.

>Btw. Third World nations show a much higher proportion at level 3, where as modern nations are level 4.

Finally, level 5 is actually being capable of interpreting the law to make it more effective, and level 6 is being able to actively understand multiple ethics set.

So independent thinkers are capable of understanding multiple UNIVERSAL principals, as opposed to being obsessed about their Vaginas and Race.

The bad news, however, is that people at Kohlberg 3 cannot understand that they are fucking up, in the same way a Sociopath cannot understand why stealing is wrong (Kohlberg 2.)

Even worse, the Post-Modernist revolution has undermined any capacity to enforce ethical systems on the population, and since ~40% of the population reaches Kohlberg 4, the ethical are outnumbered.

Finally, the reason why this information isn't 'out there,' is because there isn't actually a means to distribute controversial messages anymore.

>We highly trust Academia to be gatekeepers because of their past credentials.
>But Academia has fully regressed three levels down on Ethics.
>It used to be a place to invent a better code of ethics. Now it is a placed to act like Middle School Girls.