Interesting comments John. You approached the question in a way that I had not considered. Kohlberg’s research seems to indicate that one cannot skip levels in their progression and only have the ability to incorporate one level above their present level.
You viewed the subject from the perspective of still using the lower levels in our decision making. I think that observation is the effort to teach people where they are rather than trying to teach them where you want them to be. I think your idea has merit because we don’t unlearn knowledge just because we learn and accept knew knowledge.

Kohlberg's data suggest, in his detailed coding of categories of moral judgment, there are the following categories of 'principles': prudence(and self-realization); welfare of others; respect for authority, society, or persons; justice.
Evidence indicates all of these 'principles' or reasons are present in one form or another from stage 1 onwards, except that prudence and authority have dropped out as reasons by stage 6.

John, ask for a refund for your tuition from Arizona State. Clearly they did not teach you US History ;-) One's definition of when we became a nation could depend on your frame of reference-- Independence declared; War ending; Articles of Confederation ratified; or even the ratification of our current Constitution. But none of those happened in 1779.

Having ribbed you a little bit, I would like to say, I appreciate your analysis of people working on different moral levels. I had not thought of it that way either, rather I just looked at it as a progression issue.

Judging the present with the past is often difficult to do however. I would not say that America was founded on right wing principles. Quite the contrary. The ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were extremely radical ideas-- to the far left of traditional society. These philosophers of the time were the intellectual force behind the ideas of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Franklin, etc. Yes, they had their contemporaries who pushed them more to the center, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, etc., but the compromises they reached were still quite high-level on the morality scale of the time- bodering between 5 and 6, and I would judge them. America's move to the right has ebbed and flowed in our history, but I would argue that it is a natural tendency of societies that as they become more prosperous, they become more conservative. It is a natural result of the mental processes that seek to preserve wealth and power and become less risk averse.

What percentage of Japanese did not want to change the hereditary laws of succession in the monarchy before the crown prince sired a male heir? That is very level four. It ignores the equal value of men and women and favors tradition and order.

What of all the foreign prostitues brought to Japan to feed the appetites of men? Japan has had serious problems with that issue. That does not show a universal moral judgment of equality of races, genders and social levels. It is exploitation, plain and simple.

My point is not to say 'Japan is just as bad as anyone else.' It is merely that your were born and raised in America so as an adult you never went through a cultural awareness process. It was a transformational part of your development. However, you are learning about Japan as an adult, and that process leads one to a natural 'honeymoon' phase of comparison to America. If you stay long enough, the honeymoon will end, and you will, I think, find just as many problems as we have in America, nuanced, but ever-present.

I do agree with Tom concerning the progressive nature of our Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. I personally would include Alexander Hamilton; though he was an elitist, he was a political scientist that followed the progressive philosophers that Tom mentioned.
One area where I have some disagreement is the definition of today’s conservatives. It’s true that the original definition of conservatism would following his thinking of asset protection and maintaining the status quo, but today’s conservative base , while containing the affluent upper middle to upper class, also contains a greater population of Americans that use religion as the basis of determining their voting position. Much of the staunch Republican base are middle class and even lower middle class and they vote on the basis of moral Christian issues. If they considered the monetary policies of the Republican Party and voted with their pocketbook they would vote Democratic, as has been the historical precedent.
That is the reason I believe religion has high-jacked the Republican Party. The religious organizations are locked in at moral levels 3&4 because of scriptural doctrines that are racial, sexual, and social discriminatory. This segment of the Republican Party believes in the inerrancy of the scriptures; therefore they accept intolerant positions that have a basis that originated 3000+ years ago. That date must be considered the beginning of the intolerant attitude of Judeo-Christians, not the end.
Kohlberg believes that education is the determining factor that leads one to progress to moral levels 5 & 6.
At this period in time, it appears that religion has lost the insight of men like Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Charles S. Peirce and John Dewey.
In my opinion most of today’s professing Christians are not Christian. In fact most are bigots.

Well Tom, you've got one thing right about what I said. Nothing happened in 1779. I was trying to remember how many years passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence before the Constitution was ratified. It was 13, not 3.

Now on to the other things.

I think when we judge the morality of the past in regards to a scale, we can only judge that morality in terms of the scale. That may seem like cyclic logic, but it is pointing out that we can't use our scale with modern ideas of morality and their ideas of morality and get a conclusion that is of any value. When studying the anthropology of a culture then yes, we should not make such judgments, but this whole topic is based on making judgments of morality that adhere to a modern scale. We need to judge the past with the same rules as we would judge the present.

To say that they were left for their time is true, but irrelevant to my branch of the conversation. Furthermore, I did not limit my discussion to the founding fathers, even though I qualified that many of them were not right winged, I included their constituents whom they were representing. If you dare say their constituents were not religious and conservative I would have to say that your degree is also worthless. In Europe they were lefties, in the US they were the norm and were trying to conserve their ways of life. Thus the US was created by the religious right.

Now on to the relatively small section that I wrote on Japan and your full scale attack on it. For clarity here is what I wrote:

Personally I think Japan is more level 5 than the US. In the US the government on a federal level is more concerned with level 5 but on a local level it's completely level 4. Here in Japan there seems to be a universal amount of level 5 with very little level 4. If you look in the right places (like Hiroshima) you'll find large deposits of level 6.

Now I will clarify what I was saying. When I say federal level I mean national. Macro-social level. The US as a state. It is level 5. The laws are supposedly things that the people want. Then I mentioned on a local scale the US is more of a level 4. I still believe this to be true. My intention is for you to think of LOCAL laws and enforcement. The police in the US are a very visible and 'vocal' force when compared to Japan. Here the police do very little unless something serious is going on. In Japan there are no states with different laws everywhere you go and further complications as cities decide what goes on even further. There are very few laws in Japan that are not national laws. If you live in Tokyo, Osaka, or Hiroshima, the laws are the same. That is very much more level 5 than the US. In a sense, the US is more tribal now than Japan is. Of course historically that was not the case and that's where you started your reply.

Yes in the past Japan was a very repressive society. During Japanese feudal times I would say that level 4 was the rule of thumb. Everyone respected the Emporer, the Shogun, and the samurai. They were the leaders and what they said was the law. They continued the system for the sake of the system. So things that deal with that system still have the feelings and stigma attached to them. The emporer in Japan is a symbol only. Much like the King and Queen in England today. Of course they want their symbol of that past system to stay the same or it would cease to be the symbol that it tries to be.

Now on to your prostitute argument. Obviously you've not spent time in Japan. Things are not as bad as you believe. If you ever came to Japan and spent some real time here you would see that things are much better here than any other place in the world, including the United States. Crime in Japan is scarce at best. Even sex crimes which are the most common in Japan, are less common than in the US. People just don't steal in Japan. Ask them why and they'll say, 'Because it's not mine.'

I lost my wallet at Universal Studios and went back to the place where I lost it 30 minutes later and everything was there. Cash, cards, everything. People care about each other more here than even in the southern US. Yes there are problems. I have seen them and even been the victim of them, but overall it's just a better place.

Perhaps you had the honeymoon experience at one time and that has led you to believe that everyone has the same experience, but that's like if you ate only gruel your entire life and you loved it. Then I told you about something called a watermelon, and I said it is so great and better than gruel, but you didn't believe me because you'd never had a watermelon and you liked gruel so much. Yes the US is a wonderful place and better than most. That doesn't mean Japan isn't a watermelon. =)

John, I realize now that perhaps my comments were not grounded enough to keep you from getting defensive over what I wrote. I did not intend even a small attack on Japan nor on your experiences there-- especially not the full scale attack you accuse me of. I give here a few links as the background for the comments I originally made. While I would like to take credit for recognizing the honeymoon phase of cultural adaptation, I am not that observant. Many social scientists smarter than me have documented that phenomenon for years and years. I just remember teaching it to my undergraduate students at Petra Christian University when I taught international business communications. I don't have the text book I used, but Wikipedia has a short description that does the job.

on the honeymoon phase of culture shock:

[en.wikipedia.org]

While you may have thought I was writing about some Tom Cruise version of Japan and samurais, I was specifically asking about how great a debate it caused when the expectation of a male heir to the throne looked unlikely.

Dealing with Japanese succession laws:

[news.bbc.co.uk]

You are right, I have never lived in Japan, but those who do live in Japan and have the job of monitoring the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation have commented at great length about the issues I raised. Fortunately, Japan is addressing the issue and taking measures to improve-- something I cannot say for many countries in the world. But here is what the experts say:

Trafficking in Persons in Japan:

[tokyo.usembassy.gov]

Comparing Japanese laws to laws in the US is a bit like comparing Japan's laws to Europe's laws. You rightly applaud Japan for uniform laws, but to compare that to the US is like faulting Korea for having different laws than in Tokyo. Every state in our Union is a free and independent state (ie., a free and independent nation). As such, our states create their own laws just as Japan creates its own laws. The Union which our states have joined is not intended to deprive our states of their independence, rather it is to bind them together for mutual benefit. These free and independent states created a Union by agreeing to work together on issues of commerce, defense and foreign affairs. Everything else remains with the states, including criminal laws, family laws, contract laws, etc.-- all the other internal functions of an independent nation. That concept is enshrined in our Constitution which is quite broad when measured on the Kohlberg scale.

Admittedly, comparing Texas to Massachusetts is a pretty bleak comparison. I love Texas, but the truth is she is closer to the border between 3 and 4, while Massachusetts falls stronger into the same 5 category as you place Japan.

Thus, do we compare Japan to Texas or to Massachusetts? Either is fair-- that was not my point. Japan may certainly seem to be further along certain ethical scales compared to Texas, but it is not fair to compare it to the US as a whole-- we are far too broad and far more heterogeneous than Japan than a 1:50 comparison would allow.

There is no moral situation that does not involve considerations of people's happiness or welfare and considerations of equal treatment between people.
Kohlberg

If this statement is a fact, then religion will stifle progress to moral levels 5 & 6. I know of no gods that put people first.

Morality and ethics linked to happiness?Interesting that in the mail today my issue of Discover Magazine had a map of the happiest countries: You can see it online:
[www.discover.com]

All very interesting reading. Tom's comment that religion actually facilitates moral growth is very interesting. It appears then that religion can be a step in moral progress, but one must shed its inherit shackles to attain moral nirvana. All I can say is ...humph??

Thanks John. I know that you have been busy with finals this week.
This topic has had a lot of response and about 200 hits.