Because of Buffy

[chani]

I came to the Internet realm because of Buffy...posting on the Cross and Stake Spoiler Board first, and then on other boards...So it's time to talk about the Whedonverse in here!

A Structuralist philosopher, Lawrence Kohlberg who was a professor at Harward, has likened six stages of moral development. His ideas can be criticized of course, but they are quite interesting. Lately I read two novels by Dan Simmons in which the author mentioned Kohlberg’s theory to explain the moral behaviour of his characters. This gave me the idea to do the same with the characters of the Jossverse. After all morality was very important in BTVS and Ats! BTVS mostly was about growing-up, which includes moral development.

But first here’s the stages defined by Kohlberg.

I. Preconventional Level
At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but he interprets the labels in terms of either the physical or hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels.

Stage 0: Egocentric judgement.

The child makes judgements of good on the basis of what he likes and wants or what helps him, and bad on the basis of what he does not like or what hurts him. He has no concept of rules or of obligations to obey or conform independent of his wish.

Dan Simmons wrote his villains based on this stage, according to him this is the stage of sociopaths!

Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation.

The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are values in their own right, not in terms of respect for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter is stage 4).

Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation.

Right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms such as those of the market place. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch your", not loyalty, gratitude, or justice.

II. Conventional Level

At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the persons or group involved in it.

Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy-nice girl" orientation.

Good behaviour is what pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or "natural" behaviour. The individual is motivated to avoid social disapproval for nonconformity, and would like to be judged by his intentions. "he means well" becomes important for the first time.

Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation.

The individual is oriented toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behaviour consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake.

Many societies including totalitarianism are based on this stage. The Nazi Germany would fit in this it for instance.

III. Post-Conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level.

The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and principles that have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups of persons holding them and apart from the individual's own identification with the group. The level has the two following stages:

Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation (generally with utilitarian overtones).

Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society. The Law rules. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching consensus. Aside from what is constitutionally and democratically agreed upon, right action is a matter of personal values and opinions. The result is an emphasis upon the "legal point of view", but with an additional emphasis upon the possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than freezing it in terms of stage 4 "law and order"). Outside the legal realm, free agreement, and contract, is the binding element of obligation.

The "official" morality of the American government and Constitution is at this stage.

Stage 6: The universal ethical-principle orientation.

Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative); they are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.

I guess that civil disobedience, for instance, would belong to this stage.


Kohlberg found that in many cultures young people between the ages of 2 - 25, develop from Stage 1 onwards in an invariable, irreversible, step-wise sequence; the majority reach Stages 3 or 4 but few reach Stage 6.

In his novels Dan Simmons, for instance, keeps saying that the United States were founded by people from stage 6, defended by people from stage 5 and inhabited by level II or I.

Later Kohlberg speculated that a 7th stage may exist (Transcendental Morality) which would link religion with moral reasoning: Buddha, Gandhi, Socrates might have been Stage 7 people…

I think that Caleb, the priest-killer of season 7, is typically a stage 0 guy, a sociopath. Most of the monsters, regular vampires and demons were stage 1-2 IMO,. For instance Mr Trick, a fairly intelligent vampire in season 3 was a stage 2. But what about the regular characters?

Spike being my favourite character I'm going to focus on his case. He's a very good example of moral development and one of the ME writers, David Fury, said that Spike was morally superior to Angel. I think it's so very true.

I think he was a stage 3 person from the beginning. Well actually as a human, the awful bloody poet in the victorian society he started as a stage 4, but his journey really began when he became a vampire. After being sired William wanted nothing but to be accepted, he wanted to please...both Drusilla and Angelus who were only stage 2 people(Harmony is typically a stage 3 too, as a vampire as well as a human btw...). After being chipped by The Initiative Spike mostly stayed a stage 3, but we saw glimpses of a potential stage 5 in season 5 and 6 through his relationship with the Summers women, especially Dawn. Then Spike skipped stage 4, which was the level of his human self...because basically he's a rules breaker.

He fought to get his soul back and reached a new level suddenly! From then on, souled Spike was a stage 5 person...quite crazy too, but sure that he was a bad man according to the legal point of view. Yet his journey didn't end up when he sacrificed himself in "Chosen"...

Stuck in L.A after his resurrection, Spike had to work with Angel and his team. I think that Angel is mostly a stage 5 person (while he's only stage 2 when soulless). At the beginning of the season, we could have thought that Spike has reversed to a stage 3 (through his relationship with Fred), or even 2...but it was only a façade. I actually think that Spike reached a stage 6 in Ats. It's obvious in "A Hole in the World", or in the end of the season. So yes he's morally superior to Angel.

Comments

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Hehe I knew this would make the morality teacher react!!!!

I posted this on the board btw if you want to join in the debate...

Unlike Chrissie I don't feel the need to connect Kohlberg to Kinsey though.

[chrissie-linnit.livejournal.com]

It's not so much connecting the man Kinsey to Kohlberg's scale. Rather, I think it would be interesting to apply Kinseys very cold and clinical scientific analyses technique to the Jossverse characters based on Kohlberg's scale of Morality.

As Frances herself infers over on her LJ, Kinsey himself was so fixated on his own scientific hypotheses that he omitted to incorporate (or consider) the moral standards of his own group. This, I believe, substantiates my feeling that all subjects within the sphere of any social behavioural analyses will be influenced by a moral code. If morality is excluded from consideration when analysing test results, conclusions cannot be considered absolute.

Am I the only one off down this road? *whistles a lonely tune and wanders off to make a mug of decaf coffee*

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry Chrissie but I don't really understand what you want to do...But you're welcome to join the discussion on the board!

:- )

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

Does it really matter whether Kinsey considers someone's stated morality?

Afterall, isn't your behavior representative of your moral outlook?
Else one would generally be labelled a hypocrite!

What would it matter to know that I am (was) Roman Catholic and should therefore consider homogenic sex to be immoral, if my behavior is that of a gay man?

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Kinsey actually shows America they are a bunch of hypocrits, for their moral stance doesn't fit their sexual practice!

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

To be fair not sure it's only an American behaviour. I guess it's quite common...

Or as we say in French:

Faites ce que je dis mais ne faites pas ec que je fais!!!

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah... and the fundamentalist Christians are still belly-aching about it. They are trying to prove Kinsey wrong; mostly by calling him a pervert and child-molester. Though they also misquote him more often than not. Like the 10% are homosexual figure which he did not say at all (and most everyone in America believes he did).