No.

You are no doubt aware that Kohlberg has numerous detractors within his own profession who would not consider him a relevant authority. You cannot simply claim him as one without further justification and expect that claim to be accepted by anyone who isn't already a partisan of his. I merely reminded you of that.

You asked "If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him?" I answered your question. If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked it.

The idea that there is a place of eternal punishment to which you will surely go when you die unless a dead Jew decides to rescue you from it out of the goodness of his heart certainly calls for a "Hmmph!" It is distinctly crude and bizarre.

May 6, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Ken wrote:

No.

You are no doubt aware that Kohlberg has numerous detractors within his own profession who would not consider him a relevant authority. You cannot simply claim him as one without further justification and expect that claim to be accepted by anyone who isn't already a partisan of his. I merely reminded you of that.

Every psychological theory has its detractors.  The only real objections to Kohlberg have come from those who allege that his TESTS were bias toward women, did not reflect cultural differences, and whether or not test subjects were simply “talking a good game.”  This does no damage to Kohlberg’s theory about stages of moral development itself.  Just like IQ tests that don’t take such things into account—it doesn’t mean that intelligent quotients aren’t real or that intelligent quotients can’t be measured.

Understanding Kohlberg is still required for all levels of study in human behavioral development--both undergrad and post graduate.  Regardless of whether or not all agree with, (and no two psychologists ever agree on everything), none would say his work would not be relevant to the topic.

It seems to me, you just don’t like Kohlberg in this discussion because a theist made reference to him.  I suspect that if the reference had come from an atheist you would no doubt be backing him.

May 6, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Ken wrote:

You asked "If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him?" I answered your question. If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked it.”

First, the question wasn’t to you.  Second, what you provided wasn’t an answer, it was a baseless allegation intended as an insult and thus added nothing constructive to the discussion.  That being the case, your remark was just as I said—stupid.

May 6, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Ken wrote:

The idea that there is a place of eternal punishment to which you will surely go when you die unless a dead Jew decides to rescue you from it out of the goodness of his heart certainly calls for a "Hmmph!" It is distinctly crude and bizarre.

Not me—you.  Hell is not something I need concern myself with, so it has nothing to do with my motives in being generous.  And I really don’t care if you think what I believe is crude and bizarre.  

May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 8:15PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:

Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate.

I doubt that you know what a “reasonable debate” looks likes.

There is no logical problem appealing to authority when the authority is relevant.  In education we call it “CITING REFERENCES.”

Since the topic is the moral motivation of people, there are few other authorities MORE relevant than Kohlberg. It seems the only thing misunderstood here is your poor understanding of logical fallacies.

 Citing references, is generally understood to be in support of an argument that one is promoting in a debate, the reference may not stand in for an argument.

I didn’t use the reference as an argument.  I used the reference to explain my motivation for generosity. 

Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? 

Or do you just make s**t up hoping no one will notice???

Nonsense.

This, from the same textbook I cited in my previous response:

“One of the most influential researchers in moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)….[H]e developed a highly influential model of moral development.” (Huffman, Ibid, pg. 351, underlining mine).

"One who is getting his ass kicked has no place criticizing his opponent's fighting techniques." --Bruce Lee--

If true, it says something about your last comment, doesn’t it?  Or do you only apply that rule to theists?

It seems, once again, you’ve made it really easy for me to call your horses**t, “bulls**t.”

May 6, 2012 -- 3:42PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:

The fact that you don't seem to understand that Kohlberg is generally understood to be discussing justice and not morality makes him less useful to buttress a moral argument.

Nonsense.

This, from the same textbook I cited in my previous response:

“One of the most influential researchers in moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)….[H]e developed a highly influential model of moral development.” (Huffman, Ibid, pg. 351, underlining mine).

Not only an argument from authority but a secondary reference to that authority at that.  Perhaps you really need to study Kohlberg and try to understand his theories and responses by his peers.

Edit: I looked up Huffman and it appears to be respected only by the publisher and students.  The one peer reference quoted by the publisher referred only to its popularity not to its authorativeness.    

May 6, 2012 -- 7:24PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

The Huffman source is straight out of a college textbook on Psychology. 

And we all know that college textbooks are the last word on everything.