Kohlberg's moral reasoning

[surfeuse]

With respect, I have to disagree with your above statement. My position on abortion would be pre, there is no equivocation, no “seeing all sides”

True, and even St. Teresa of Calcutta was pre- on abortion(she spoke out against it quite often), yet this “moral development” page puts her in the post-conventional category.

wait what lol when did i imply anything about abortion? but @joeybaggz it has to do with your overall attitude @meltzerboy2 would know forsure thoguh

 

[Escabrosa]

I think the Church is well aware of the varying capacities for understanding and brilliantly accommodates everyone. You can have a simple understanding of Catholicism and be just fine, or you can dig deep into its abstract philosophies and never run out of things to learn.

As I get older I learn more and more that all the rules the Church tells me to follow are practical and geared toward the good of both the individual and the group.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yes, you are correct. However, keep in mind that no theory is perfect either in substance or method used to construct the theory. As I tell my students, it’s good to think about these psychological theories, relate them to your personal lives, and even come to agree with them and accept them. But, at the same time, keep an open mind to new discoveries which may result in revising theories or discarding them. The nature of all science is change: nothing is chiseled in stone.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I agree with you on the hard sciences, but on the soft sciences I reserve my judgement.
Especially because applying scientific principals to spiritual issues is like nailing jello

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yikes! I’m not going to even touch the topic of abortion. No way. I’ve already learned my lesson…several times.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I’m not even sure that scientific principles should be applied to spiritual issues even though there is a psychology of religion. BTW, I never cared for jello.