Moral conversion

[Magical Realist]

"....In philosophy, moral conversion is an existential change in the person, who is perceived as the moral agent adopting new moral standards (or mores) in a process of internal transformation. Moral conversion is a relatively rare event in a person's normal development. It involves a decision that is both conscious and existentialist (i.e. based on critical questioning).[1] Moral conversion is based on the internalist view of morality.[2]


As an existential event

The process of moral conversion was described by Lawrence Kohlberg of the University of Chicago, who developed the so-called Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Six classes of moral conversion were identified, based on progressively higher and higher levels of moral reasoning, beginning with the preconventional level of a child, and concluding with the postconventional (or autonomous) level of an adult aware of ethical principles guiding universally moral behaviour.[3]

Notably, the notion of moral conversion has been distinguished from the theory of moral development per se, by Walter E. Conn (of Villanova University) and John C. Gibbs (of the Ohio State University).[4] Moral conversion, according to Conn and Gibbs, involves critical questioning and therefore differs from any spontaneous moral development (Kohlberg). It results in the setting forth of the "self-chosen values" (Conn), which bring the existential dimension to the transforming process.[5]

Alfredo J. Mac Laughlin of St. Ambrose University defines moral conversion by the frequent occurrence of the "sharp-turn conversions" resulting from the presence of free will, which differ from the natural/spontaneous development taking place in incremental stages (Kohlberg).[6] The most significant aspect of moral conversion is the withdrawal from the moral convictions of the past, which is based on "critical self-appropriation" or the critical discovery of oneself.[7] It depends on the sense of authenticity beyond the possibility of predictions.[8]

As self-transcendence

Bernard Lonergan explains that moral conversion is not moral perfection. It is the "withdrawal from self-enclosure" or the shift from personal satisfaction criterion to values that transcend oneself (or one's own group interests). Moral conversion, according to Lonergan, is one of three different types of conversion along with the intellectual and the religious conversion.[9] From a causal point of view, it is the difference between varying levels of consciousness leading to a higher sense of responsibility for the world."----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_conversion

[confused2]

I can very much identify with the points made in the OP.
Isn't there inevitably a transition from "I do what is approved of" or "I do what is 'safe'" to ... taking on the responsibilities of an adult as both judge and participant?

[Magical Realist]

I think there is more of a conversion..perhaps a gradual dawning...from "I do what I'm expected to do" to "I do what I want to do." This may actually be a sort of reverse moral conversion---an existential collapse of the moral ideal.. Of accepting yourself and your desires and needs without judgment or shame. Of spurning conformity and obedience to some external will or standard.

[confused2]

I think there is more of a conversion..perhaps a gradual dawning...from "I do what I'm expected to do" to "I do what I want to do." This may actually be a sort of reverse moral conversion---an existential collapse of the moral ideal.. Of accepting yourself and your desires and needs without judgment or shame. Of spurning conformity and obedience to some external will or standard.

Yes.

Moral conversion is a relatively rare event in a person's normal development.

The writer may just (somewhat arrogantly) be talking about himself.  I'm with MR on the "gradual dawning" - yes also to self-acceptance but would add gen'rally trying not to be a complete dickhead for the sake of self and others.

[C C]

Bernard Lonergan explains that moral conversion is not moral perfection. It is the "withdrawal from self-enclosure" or the shift from personal satisfaction criterion to values that transcend oneself (or one's own group interests). Moral conversion, according to Lonergan, is one of three different types of conversion along with the intellectual and the religious conversion. From a causal point of view, it is the difference between varying levels of consciousness leading to a higher sense of responsibility for the world."

Here's not here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here%27s_Not_Here

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20...-4-review/

Transcending Morgan's former, PTSD-spawned survival tactic of "to clear" (eliminating both the living and the restless dead from an area).

- - -

[Leigha]

Question for the group, where does our sense (objective or subjective) of morality come from? Is it cultural or are there inherent evolutionary characteristics that enable us to develop a sense of morality? Altruism has been thought to be an evolutionary ''by product,'' for want of a better word. Most species display altruism on varied levels, but morality goes beyond mere altruism. Just curious as to what you think?

[Yazata]

Question for the group, where does our sense (objective or subjective) of morality come from?

I personally think that it's intuited. We just feel that some things are right and others wrong. (That still leaves open the question of exactly what is being intuited and whether moral judgements are objective of subjective.)

Is it cultural or are there inherent evolutionary characteristics that enable us to develop a sense of morality?

I'd say 'both'. I think that human beings are born with innate social instincts. We have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. We form attachments to others, stronger the closer they are to us personally (Blood relatives, village, country, humanity in general...) like concentric circles. I think that's mostly innate.  

And that includes a 'go along to get along' instinct. So we tend to conform to the expectations of our groups and internalize those demands. Since not every group displays the same values or makes the same demands, our sense of right and wrong is strongly influenced the groups that we are members of and identify with.

Other things like language seem to me to work in much the same way. Babies are born with an innate language instinct, so that they have a propensity to start talking without much instruction (and languages in general seem to share deep structure in common). But the language babies learn is the one that they are exposed to and hear their surrounding group speaking.

[Syne]

Question for the group, where does our sense (objective or subjective) of morality come from? Is it cultural or are there inherent evolutionary characteristics that enable us to develop a sense of morality? Altruism has been thought to be an evolutionary ''by product,'' for want of a better word. Most species display altruism on varied levels, but morality goes beyond mere altruism. Just curious as to what you think?

If it were largely evolutionary, we would have been as civil as we are now long ago. There are evolutionary precursors, but no animal has demonstrated the ability to contradict its natural instincts...only some existing instincts being co-opted toward nonthreatening outgroups. The ability to contradict natural instinct does seem to be mostly cultural, which itself is largely influenced by human intelligence-driven reason. I would say moral intuitions are more a secondary effect of the culture.

Intelligence is the single largest factor of moral judgement.

[Leigha]

Question for the group, where does our sense (objective or subjective) of morality come from?

I personally think that it's intuited. We just feel that some things are right and others wrong. (That still leaves open the question of exactly what is being intuited and whether moral judgements are objective of subjective.)

Is it cultural or are there inherent evolutionary characteristics that enable us to develop a sense of morality?

I'd say 'both'. I think that human beings are born with innate social instincts. We have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. We form attachments to others, stronger the closer they are to us personally (Blood relatives, village, country, humanity in general...) like concentric circles. I think that's mostly innate.  

And that includes a 'go along to get along' instinct. So we tend to conform to the expectations of our groups and internalize those demands. Since not every group displays the same values or makes the same demands, our sense of right and wrong is strongly influenced the groups that we are members of and identify with.

Other things like language seem to me to work in much the same way. Babies are born with an innate language instinct, so that they have a propensity to start talking without much instruction (and languages in general seem to share deep structure in common). But the language babies learn is the one that they are exposed to and hear their surrounding group speaking.

Good points, Yaz. I think that morality is largely subjective, which is why we have so many differing opinions from religious to political in our culture. Objective morality though must exist if we form laws, and there are consequences for breaking those laws. If there isn't collective agreement on how a society should be governed, etc...then, where would we be? Most people feel stealing should be illegal, most people feel sexual assault should be illegal, etc. Those would be laws built upon objective morality, yes?

But, such things as gay marriage, abortion, LGBT initiatives, etc. seem to be where many people collide with their views, and thus ...morality then seems to be subjective. If you're a Christian, then you feel homosexuality is sinful, if you're an atheist, you may see nothing wrong with it. And so it goes.

[Syne]

Good points, Yaz. I think that morality is largely subjective, which is why we have so many differing opinions from religious to political in our culture. Objective morality though must exist if we form laws, and there are consequences for breaking those laws. If there isn't collective agreement on how a society should be governed, etc...then, where would we be? Most people feel stealing should be illegal, most people feel sexual assault should be illegal, etc. Those would be laws built upon objective morality, yes?

But, such things as gay marriage, abortion, LGBT initiatives, etc. seem to be where many people collide with their views, and thus ...morality then seems to be subjective. If you're a Christian, then you feel homosexuality is sinful, if you're an atheist, you may see nothing wrong with it. And so it goes.

Collective subjective feeling doesn't make law objective. But natural law is considered a basis for objective morality, where some acts can be deemed immoral regardless of subjective justification. For instance, we can objectively agree that the Holocaust was evil, regardless of any justifying benefit that could ever possibly be derived. We know this because life has objective, inherent value.

Morally objective arguments can be made for most things, whether or not people accept them as such. For example, gay marriage objectively undermines the social value of the institution. Since marriage primarily exists to raise children, reducing it to a slogan like "love is love" devalues it to just an expression of feelings, instead of a commitment to the future of a society. Seeing as fatherless children are much more prone to substance abuse, crime, depression, etc., society as an objective motive to maintain the value of such institutions. When "marriage" is just a badge of "equality", it has much less objective value...albeit much more subjective value for many.

Similarly, abortion devalues human life. If we can justify killing or enslaving people simply because we claim they lack some vague quality called personhood, then life has little value...and all bets are off. Again, people make subjective arguments about "my body" and "my rights" to argue against even confronting an ultrasound, much less the actual human life.

Christians can point to objective reasons to disapprove of homosexuality, since nature only allows reproduction between heterosexuals. And even if gay couples do adopt or artificially conceive, gays are more prone to substance abuse and depression, having dubious lasting effects on their young. All societies have objective reasons to protect children. And again, the only arguments to the contrary seem to be personal subjective ones.