A theory is an interrelation of constructs from which hypotheses are developed to explain the relationship between variables (Creswell, 2009). A general cultural relativity hypothesis proposes that perceptions are shaped through the process of socialization (Cheng, Cheung, Chio, & Chan 2013). Cheng et al. (2013) examine this relativism in their multicultural meta-analysis of the relationship between causal perceptions and negative psychological symptoms. Similarly, the research of Vauclair and Fischer (2011) demonstrates the relationship between individual attitudes and cultural context. However, their study also indicates that, although some values are divergent between societies, many other priorities are held in most cultures (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011). Another theory proposes that the evolutionary history of all humanity results in many traits that are common throughout the many diverse civilizations (Haidt, 2007). In his article, Haque (2011) argues that human moral psychology cannot be reduced to arbitrary social conventions. He concludes by noting that the dichotomy between biological and social origins is false (Haque, 2011). Often, subjective values result from the expression of inherited characteristics in the context of a dynamic environment (Haque, 2011).
The debate between theories, regarding the origin of behavioral and perceptual patterns, results from contrary definitions of the independent variable. Both evolutionary and cultural theories assign behavior as the dependent variable. The value of this dependent variable is determined by that of the causal antecedent (Creswell, 2009). Evolutionary theories attribute behavior patterns to the common human history of adaptation (Haque, 2011). In contrast, culturally relative theories assert that behavior patterns are learned through socialization (Haque, 2011). However, both theories have merit, and it is likely that their synthesis produces the most accurate representation (Haque, 2011). Intervening variables are agents that contribute to a result dependent on an independent value (Creswell, 2009). Biology and society complement each other to shape the behavior of the individual (Haque, 2011).
Benassi, Sweeney, and Dufour (1988) documented a general link between psychological stress and the perception that one has little control over events. This type of universal relationship would be consistent with evolutionary theories. However, Cheng et al. (2013) proposed that collectivist cultures would be more able to psychologically accommodate situations resulting from circumstantial conditions rather than personal motivation. Individualism and collectivism represent an interpretive dimension that functions to delineate the differences between societies (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Cultures oriented towards collectivism socialize individuals to maintain harmony throughout situational changes (Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2002). The research of Cheng et al. (2013) integrated measures of anxiety and depression from existing research that assessed these psychological symptoms in different cultures (Cheng et al., 2013). Through statistical analysis, this study quantified the correlation between perceptions regarding the degree of personal control and the frequency of psychological distress (Cheng et al., 2013). The results indicated that collectivist values result in a decreased prevalence of depression and anxiety relative to other cultures that prioritize individuality (Cheng et al., 2013). These results support relativist assertions that perception is shaped by culture.
An artificial origin of many moral principles would result in collections of values that may be unique to a single cultural tradition (Haidt, 2007). For example, Vauclair and Fischer (2011) found that many cultures embrace different priorities that may emphasize autonomy or interdependence. These divergent attitudes result in moral systems that value personal rights while others prioritize obligations and relationships (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011). However, the existence of cultural diversity does not falsify the natural origins of morality (Haque, 2011). The excessive emphasis that is often placed on examples of diversity may ultimately threaten the validity of anthropological interpretations (Haque, 2011). Mikhail (2007) notes that, rather than refuting natural theories of emergence, diversity may indicate a systematic variation of basic principles in the context of environmental circumstances.
While the research of Vauclair and Fischer, (2011) demonstrate that some orientations are specific to a particular culture, their results also indicate that others are found universally. Because social cooperation is adaptive in most contexts, this value is common throughout various societies (Krebs, 2008). Similarly, the research of Hauser, Cushman, Young, Jin and Mikhail (2007) demonstrated a great degree of consistency across cultures in responses to some moral dilemmas. These types of moral universals exhibit little variation in the context of diverse variables (Hauser, et al., 2007). Haque (2011) demonstrates that, although some there may be some divergence in the moral systems of different cultures, morality originates from a common history of psychological evolution. Relativistic assertions that deny the significance of evolutionary history often fail to account for individual deviations from the norms prescribed by cultural orientations (Haque, 2011).
The debate regarding the origin of values is founded on an artificial opposition between genetic inheritance and developmental learning. However, these contributions are often complimentary rather than contrary (Haque, 2011). Biological processes act throughout the life history (Haque, 2011). Developmental changes are often adaptations that promote the success of an individual in an ecologically dynamic environment (Haque, 2011). This flexibility ensures the maximum functionality of the resulting individual phenotype (Haque, 2011). Behavior patterns represent an entanglement of social and biological values. Intervening variables of this type are both causally related to the effect (Creswell, 2009).
References
Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., & Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relation between locus of control orientation and depression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 357–367. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.97.3.357
Cheng, C., Cheung, S., Chio, J. H., & Chan, M. S. (2013). Cultural meaning of perceived control: A meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across 18 cultural regions. Psychological Bulletin, 39(1), 152-188. doi: 10.1037/a0028596
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1001.
Haque, O. S. (2011). Moral creationism: The science of morality and the mutiny of romantic relativism. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 11, 151-187. doi: 10.1163/156853711X568734
Hauser, M. D., Cushman, F. A., Young, L., Jin, R. and Mikhail, J. M. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgment and justiļ¬cation. Mind and Language, 22, 1-21.
Krebs, D. L. (2008). Morality: An evolutionary account. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 149–172.
Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence, and the future. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 143-152.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311–323. doi:10.1177/ 0146167202286003
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135200
Vauclair, C., & Fischer, R. (2011). Do cultural values predict individuals’ moral attitudes? A multilevel approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 645-657. doi:10.1002/ejsp.794
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Appropriate Systemic Culture
While some moral imperatives may be universally significant, many principles are defined by the systemic culture. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) Systems that embrace moral ideals can increase the frequency of positive behaviors by establishing appropriate procedures. (Zimbardo, 2007) To ensure appropriate organizational motivations, the legitimacy of the authority and culture should be continuously evaluated in the context of objective assessments. (Kilmann, Saxton, & Serpa, 1986) Effective policies are adopted when the ideology of an organization is founded on valid perceptions regarding the nature of the environment rather than illegitimate distortions of reality.
Although concepts like justice and fairness may be independent of organizational values, other principles are often established to maintain the continuity of systemic arrangements. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) The culture of an organization is a representation of the essential values embraced by the hierarchical authorities. (Zimbardo, 2007) Values are the abstract motivations that guide and justify the attitudes and behaviors of an individual. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) A positive organizational culture promotes behaviors that serve the purpose of the institution. (Kilmann et al., 1986)
Systems are power structures that implement procedures in order to promote the achievement of authority motivations. (Zimbardo, 2007) An institution establishes specific procedures to generate particular situations and behaviors that are consistent with the general objectives of the organizational culture. (Zimbardo, 2007) The definitive policies of an organization include behavioral prescriptions that describe the nature of appropriate relationships within the system. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) In almost all institutions, the moral judgment of individual behaviors is relative to these systemic priorities. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011)
An organization may ensure the universal application of essential principles by emphasizing the individuality of each person. (Zimbardo, 2007) By acknowledging the intrinsic value of all subjects, the institution inhibits dehumanization through labels and stereotypes. (Zimbardo, 2007) Additionally, recognizing each person’s unique identity may prevent many moral transgressions that are enabled by de-individuation. (Zimbardo, 2007) By encouraging personal accountability, systems may elicit behaviors that are consistent with moral standards. (Zimbardo, 2007) To prevent deviations from the expectations of the organization, no person should be allowed to diffuse or defer responsibility for their actions. (Zimbardo, 2007)
An organization may promote moral and ethical standards by prioritizing the validity of authority and policy over any other ideal. Systemic principles should be founded on authentic assessments in order to create appropriate procedures. (Zimbardo, 2007) The legitimacy of the authority should be continuously measured by the degree to which the organizational priorities are consistent with objective evaluations. (Kilmann et al., 1986) A moral system should be open to continuous criticism to enable the identification of invalid motivations. (Zimbardo, 2007) By preventing the imposition of a single set of perceptions, an organization may avoid culture founded on subjective distortions of reality. (Zimbardo, 2007)
While the collective arrangement may be maintained by universal priorities of security and stability, the dominant culture defines many behavior expectations within the system. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) The culture is founded on an ideology that is created by the authorities to justify the operations of the institution. (Zimbardo, 2007) In order to maintain effective policies, an organizational culture must be able to adapt to shifting conditions. (Kilmann et al., 1986) The validity of institutional procedures is increased by continuous evaluations of progress in the context of objective measures. (Kilmann et al., 1986)
References
Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1986) Issues in understanding and changing culture. California Management Review. 28(2), 87-94.
Vauclair, C., & Fischer, R. (2011) Do cultural values predict individuals’ moral attitudes? A cross-cultural multilevel approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 645-657. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.794
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. Random House: New York
Although concepts like justice and fairness may be independent of organizational values, other principles are often established to maintain the continuity of systemic arrangements. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) The culture of an organization is a representation of the essential values embraced by the hierarchical authorities. (Zimbardo, 2007) Values are the abstract motivations that guide and justify the attitudes and behaviors of an individual. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) A positive organizational culture promotes behaviors that serve the purpose of the institution. (Kilmann et al., 1986)
Systems are power structures that implement procedures in order to promote the achievement of authority motivations. (Zimbardo, 2007) An institution establishes specific procedures to generate particular situations and behaviors that are consistent with the general objectives of the organizational culture. (Zimbardo, 2007) The definitive policies of an organization include behavioral prescriptions that describe the nature of appropriate relationships within the system. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) In almost all institutions, the moral judgment of individual behaviors is relative to these systemic priorities. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011)
An organization may ensure the universal application of essential principles by emphasizing the individuality of each person. (Zimbardo, 2007) By acknowledging the intrinsic value of all subjects, the institution inhibits dehumanization through labels and stereotypes. (Zimbardo, 2007) Additionally, recognizing each person’s unique identity may prevent many moral transgressions that are enabled by de-individuation. (Zimbardo, 2007) By encouraging personal accountability, systems may elicit behaviors that are consistent with moral standards. (Zimbardo, 2007) To prevent deviations from the expectations of the organization, no person should be allowed to diffuse or defer responsibility for their actions. (Zimbardo, 2007)
An organization may promote moral and ethical standards by prioritizing the validity of authority and policy over any other ideal. Systemic principles should be founded on authentic assessments in order to create appropriate procedures. (Zimbardo, 2007) The legitimacy of the authority should be continuously measured by the degree to which the organizational priorities are consistent with objective evaluations. (Kilmann et al., 1986) A moral system should be open to continuous criticism to enable the identification of invalid motivations. (Zimbardo, 2007) By preventing the imposition of a single set of perceptions, an organization may avoid culture founded on subjective distortions of reality. (Zimbardo, 2007)
While the collective arrangement may be maintained by universal priorities of security and stability, the dominant culture defines many behavior expectations within the system. (Vauclair & Fischer, 2011) The culture is founded on an ideology that is created by the authorities to justify the operations of the institution. (Zimbardo, 2007) In order to maintain effective policies, an organizational culture must be able to adapt to shifting conditions. (Kilmann et al., 1986) The validity of institutional procedures is increased by continuous evaluations of progress in the context of objective measures. (Kilmann et al., 1986)
References
Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1986) Issues in understanding and changing culture. California Management Review. 28(2), 87-94.
Vauclair, C., & Fischer, R. (2011) Do cultural values predict individuals’ moral attitudes? A cross-cultural multilevel approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 645-657. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.794
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. Random House: New York
Friday, December 14, 2012
Evil of Omission
Virtue requires positive action in addition to the abstinence from evil deeds. (Zimbardo, 2007) Omission is a form of evil when it causes persistent unjustified harm. (Staub, 1999) Implicit support of a behavior is communicated by the failure to intervene. (Zimbardo, 2007) It is morally imperative that each person evaluate the motivations and consequences of the behaviors of others in addition to their own. If an individual causes or intends to cause suffering for another, any conscious person has an ethical responsibility to take action.
The social context of an event is established by the attitudes and actions of people. (Zimbardo, 2007) Evil always occurs within the context of a situation that, in many cases, may passively allow or actively encourage this type of behavior. (Formosa, 2007) Although supporting circumstances are not necessary for the performance of evil deeds, specific conditions increase the probability that certain behaviors will occur. (Formosa, 2007) Often, organizations develop cultures and institutions that are not intrinsically evil, but they may establish preconditions that increase the potential for abuses. (Staub, 1999) The assessment of systems is an important preventative measure for preventing situations that promote evil deeds. An ethical person must act in order to make some change to conditions that contribute to inhumane events.
Although the behavior of an individual may result in great suffering for other people, malevolence is rarely a person’s primary motivation. (Formosa, 2007) The self concept of most perpetrators of inhumanity and abuse is not defined by an intrinsic sense of evil. (Formosa, 2007) Rather, the perspective of many of these people is founded on perceptions that justify their actions. (Formosa, 2007) Most perpetrators present or perceive their actions as a means of achieving some beneficial result. (Staub, 1999)
A distorted belief system may promote harmful actions in service to presumption of intrinsic value. (Staub, 1999) By passively allowing the promotion of any ideology, a person completely submits to the values of the system. Blind acceptance and obedience enable active agents to promote any particular agenda. Ideological beliefs represent systemic principles that justify the means necessary to accomplish essential objectives. (Zimbardo, 2007) The moral action, in the context of a systemic culture, is to continuously question and challenge the foundation of prevalent perceptions. Although submission to some authority is an essential feature of all organizations, criticism and opposition are important checks that prevent the establishment of systemic policies and procedures that enable inhumane actions. (Staub, 1999)
References
Formosa, P. (2007). Understanding evil acts. Human Studies, 30(2), 57-77. doi: 10.1007/s10746-007-9052-y
Staub, E. (1999). The roots of evil: Social conditions, culture, personality, and basic human needs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 179-192.
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. Random House: New York
The social context of an event is established by the attitudes and actions of people. (Zimbardo, 2007) Evil always occurs within the context of a situation that, in many cases, may passively allow or actively encourage this type of behavior. (Formosa, 2007) Although supporting circumstances are not necessary for the performance of evil deeds, specific conditions increase the probability that certain behaviors will occur. (Formosa, 2007) Often, organizations develop cultures and institutions that are not intrinsically evil, but they may establish preconditions that increase the potential for abuses. (Staub, 1999) The assessment of systems is an important preventative measure for preventing situations that promote evil deeds. An ethical person must act in order to make some change to conditions that contribute to inhumane events.
Although the behavior of an individual may result in great suffering for other people, malevolence is rarely a person’s primary motivation. (Formosa, 2007) The self concept of most perpetrators of inhumanity and abuse is not defined by an intrinsic sense of evil. (Formosa, 2007) Rather, the perspective of many of these people is founded on perceptions that justify their actions. (Formosa, 2007) Most perpetrators present or perceive their actions as a means of achieving some beneficial result. (Staub, 1999)
A distorted belief system may promote harmful actions in service to presumption of intrinsic value. (Staub, 1999) By passively allowing the promotion of any ideology, a person completely submits to the values of the system. Blind acceptance and obedience enable active agents to promote any particular agenda. Ideological beliefs represent systemic principles that justify the means necessary to accomplish essential objectives. (Zimbardo, 2007) The moral action, in the context of a systemic culture, is to continuously question and challenge the foundation of prevalent perceptions. Although submission to some authority is an essential feature of all organizations, criticism and opposition are important checks that prevent the establishment of systemic policies and procedures that enable inhumane actions. (Staub, 1999)
References
Formosa, P. (2007). Understanding evil acts. Human Studies, 30(2), 57-77. doi: 10.1007/s10746-007-9052-y
Staub, E. (1999). The roots of evil: Social conditions, culture, personality, and basic human needs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 179-192.
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. Random House: New York
Saturday, August 25, 2012
On Subjective Judgment
Judgments relating to the appropriate action in a particular situation result from an assessment of the specific conditions and consequences. A decision is formed in the interpretation of an event from the perspective of the subject’s values. General moral priorities function to prescribe imperatives in certain circumstances. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) However, the validity of any moral action is limited by the imperfect consciousness of the subject.
The confidence in a decision is proportional to the metacognitive perception of the scope of the subjective consciousness. (Koriat, 2011) However, the retrospective judgment regarding the appropriateness of an action is correlated with the degree of consensus with the subjective value system. (Koriat, 2011) Discrimination between alternative possibilities is dependent on cues that are diagnostically informative cues that indicate the validity of the various options. (Koriat, 2011) These attributes are valued based on their agreement with previous experience. (Koriat, 2011)
Perceptual phenomena are created by interpreting current sensations in the context of prior knowledge. Novel information is integrated into the subjective consciousness in reference to existing cognitive schemas. The process of conceptualization consists of sequential assessments of perceptual representations. (Koriat, 2011) The accuracy of a perception is progressively increased by successive comparisons. (Koriat, 2011) The final overt decision is a summation of approximations. (Koriat, 2011) The subjective confidence in the selection is proportional to the percentage of assessments in agreement with the subjective account. (Koriat, 2011)
A decision results from relating present information to valuations. The constructed subjective perceptions provide the significant relationship necessary to interpret sensations. This meaning is compared to valuations in order to determine the appropriate response. Values relating to minimal suffering prescribe utilitarian morals. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) The categorical imperative requirement that moral actions comply with universally valid principles is founded on values relating to justice and fairness. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) The particular judgment represents the perception of compliance between a selection and subjective ethical priorities.
The perception of some value, either consequential or a priori, commits the subject to a course of action that intended to produce a corresponding end. (Hills, 2008) However, this commitment is appropriate only if the end is in fact valuable. (Hills, 2008) The motivations of conduct must possess rational foundations in subjective valuations in order to be valid. (Hills, 2008) Illogical delusions of nonexistent relations will fail to produce desired results. Since the function of subjective value is dependent on rationality, moral actions must comply with deontological criteria in order to maintain consistency. (Hills, 2008)
Assessing the morality of an action is equivalent to verifying the causal relationship between the instrumental means and the intrinsically valuable end. (Hills, 2008) This assessment is limited by the imperfect subjective foresight resulting from the inaccuracy of phenomenological constructions of meaning. Only in hindsight is the subject able to obtain an objective measurement of the consequences of a moral decision. Retrospective analysis of the appropriateness of an action is a comparison between the ends obtained and those desired.
References
Hills, A. (2008) Kanitan value realism. Ratio, 21(2), 182-200
Koriat, A. (2011) Subjective confidence in perceptual judgments: a test of the self consistency model. Journal of Experiemental Psychology: General, 140(1), 117-139
Thiroux, J.P., & Krasemann, K.W. (2012) Ethics: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.
The confidence in a decision is proportional to the metacognitive perception of the scope of the subjective consciousness. (Koriat, 2011) However, the retrospective judgment regarding the appropriateness of an action is correlated with the degree of consensus with the subjective value system. (Koriat, 2011) Discrimination between alternative possibilities is dependent on cues that are diagnostically informative cues that indicate the validity of the various options. (Koriat, 2011) These attributes are valued based on their agreement with previous experience. (Koriat, 2011)
Perceptual phenomena are created by interpreting current sensations in the context of prior knowledge. Novel information is integrated into the subjective consciousness in reference to existing cognitive schemas. The process of conceptualization consists of sequential assessments of perceptual representations. (Koriat, 2011) The accuracy of a perception is progressively increased by successive comparisons. (Koriat, 2011) The final overt decision is a summation of approximations. (Koriat, 2011) The subjective confidence in the selection is proportional to the percentage of assessments in agreement with the subjective account. (Koriat, 2011)
A decision results from relating present information to valuations. The constructed subjective perceptions provide the significant relationship necessary to interpret sensations. This meaning is compared to valuations in order to determine the appropriate response. Values relating to minimal suffering prescribe utilitarian morals. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) The categorical imperative requirement that moral actions comply with universally valid principles is founded on values relating to justice and fairness. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) The particular judgment represents the perception of compliance between a selection and subjective ethical priorities.
The perception of some value, either consequential or a priori, commits the subject to a course of action that intended to produce a corresponding end. (Hills, 2008) However, this commitment is appropriate only if the end is in fact valuable. (Hills, 2008) The motivations of conduct must possess rational foundations in subjective valuations in order to be valid. (Hills, 2008) Illogical delusions of nonexistent relations will fail to produce desired results. Since the function of subjective value is dependent on rationality, moral actions must comply with deontological criteria in order to maintain consistency. (Hills, 2008)
Assessing the morality of an action is equivalent to verifying the causal relationship between the instrumental means and the intrinsically valuable end. (Hills, 2008) This assessment is limited by the imperfect subjective foresight resulting from the inaccuracy of phenomenological constructions of meaning. Only in hindsight is the subject able to obtain an objective measurement of the consequences of a moral decision. Retrospective analysis of the appropriateness of an action is a comparison between the ends obtained and those desired.
References
Hills, A. (2008) Kanitan value realism. Ratio, 21(2), 182-200
Koriat, A. (2011) Subjective confidence in perceptual judgments: a test of the self consistency model. Journal of Experiemental Psychology: General, 140(1), 117-139
Thiroux, J.P., & Krasemann, K.W. (2012) Ethics: Theory and practice (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Religious Foundations of Morality
The numerous types of moral foundations can essentially be reduced to two systems of justification, objective authority or subjective reason. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) Morality founded on authority is the result of some external source, while arguments from reason are justifications made within oneself. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) This distinction reflects the position of the subject in reference to objectivity. Since values are defined by the subjective perceptions, any objective source of morality is an invalid induction. (Millar, 2011) Religious foundations of morality make the logical error of deriving an imperative from descriptions of reality.
Accepting the cultural significance of religion does not require belief in the doctrine. Many individuals and societies have founded their moral systems on religious texts. The consequences of this are disputable. However, the validity of such a foundation is not dependent on the success of any particular context.
If the believers of a religion accept the contents of their canon as absolute truth, it would seem logical to adopt any system of morality present in the sacred documents. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) However, absolute truth must be applicable in all circumstances. This results in a contradictory consequence as the universal code must then be applied to those who do not accept the truth of the doctrine. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012)
The nature of the contradiction in religious systems of morality results from the fact that subjective perceptions are not necessarily identical to objective reality. (Millar, 2011) The subject constructs perceptions to interpret the meaning of sensory experience. (Flood, 2010) However, this empirical influence on knowledge does not guarantee any truth in the subjective account, as the sensory experience is defined by properties of the subject as well as the object. (Millar, 2011) When constructing the phenomenological account, the subject projects attributes onto objectivity that are really only artifacts of sensory physiology. (Flood, 2010)
The only rational conclusion of this relationship is the nihilistic reduction of supposed objective truth knowledge to mere functional propositions. (Millar, 2011) This epistemic limitation prevents pure subjective consciousness of any absolute truth. (Millar, 2011) Any description of objectivity is only an account of the subjective experience. (Flood, 2010) Meaningful prescriptions must be rationally constructed by the subject and then compared to experience in order to verify accuracy. (Millar, 2011) This unidirectional consciousness is invalid if reversed in the opposite function. (Millar, 2011)
To interpret meaning in reality, the subject must rationally create a universal principle that is then deductively applied to particular situations. (Millar, 2011) There is no rational inductive derivative of universal concepts from isolated examples since it is not possible to verify every instance of the rule’s application. Deductive reasoning can be improved through correction in response to error as in the scientific method of verification. (Millar, 2011) Induction is hopelessly trapped in the antecedence of any individual event. (Millar, 2011)
Religious foundations of morality are always flawed since the induction of a universal principle from a particular example is an invalid derivation of a prescriptive imperative from a descriptive interpretation. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) Morals are rules of conduct that function to satisfy subjective valuations. Justifying values based on any objective source claims that the perception is equivalent to the object. However, since consciousness is a reference between the subject and the object, the object is unknowable in itself. (Millar, 2011) The only valid foundation of morality is one that can be arrived at through reason. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) The valuations and perceptions that justify a moral system can be assessed in reference to objectivity only if they are defined by the subject. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) Such functional comparisons are not possible if the subject accepts some authority as the absolute source of truth. (Millar, 2011)
References
Thiroux, J.P., & Krasemann, K.W. (2012) Ethics: Theory and practice, Eleventh Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.
Flood, A. (2010) Understanding phenomenology. Nurse Researcher, 17(2), 7-15
Millar, B. (2011) Sensory phenomenology and perceptual content. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(244), 558-576
Accepting the cultural significance of religion does not require belief in the doctrine. Many individuals and societies have founded their moral systems on religious texts. The consequences of this are disputable. However, the validity of such a foundation is not dependent on the success of any particular context.
If the believers of a religion accept the contents of their canon as absolute truth, it would seem logical to adopt any system of morality present in the sacred documents. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) However, absolute truth must be applicable in all circumstances. This results in a contradictory consequence as the universal code must then be applied to those who do not accept the truth of the doctrine. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012)
The nature of the contradiction in religious systems of morality results from the fact that subjective perceptions are not necessarily identical to objective reality. (Millar, 2011) The subject constructs perceptions to interpret the meaning of sensory experience. (Flood, 2010) However, this empirical influence on knowledge does not guarantee any truth in the subjective account, as the sensory experience is defined by properties of the subject as well as the object. (Millar, 2011) When constructing the phenomenological account, the subject projects attributes onto objectivity that are really only artifacts of sensory physiology. (Flood, 2010)
The only rational conclusion of this relationship is the nihilistic reduction of supposed objective truth knowledge to mere functional propositions. (Millar, 2011) This epistemic limitation prevents pure subjective consciousness of any absolute truth. (Millar, 2011) Any description of objectivity is only an account of the subjective experience. (Flood, 2010) Meaningful prescriptions must be rationally constructed by the subject and then compared to experience in order to verify accuracy. (Millar, 2011) This unidirectional consciousness is invalid if reversed in the opposite function. (Millar, 2011)
To interpret meaning in reality, the subject must rationally create a universal principle that is then deductively applied to particular situations. (Millar, 2011) There is no rational inductive derivative of universal concepts from isolated examples since it is not possible to verify every instance of the rule’s application. Deductive reasoning can be improved through correction in response to error as in the scientific method of verification. (Millar, 2011) Induction is hopelessly trapped in the antecedence of any individual event. (Millar, 2011)
Religious foundations of morality are always flawed since the induction of a universal principle from a particular example is an invalid derivation of a prescriptive imperative from a descriptive interpretation. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) Morals are rules of conduct that function to satisfy subjective valuations. Justifying values based on any objective source claims that the perception is equivalent to the object. However, since consciousness is a reference between the subject and the object, the object is unknowable in itself. (Millar, 2011) The only valid foundation of morality is one that can be arrived at through reason. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) The valuations and perceptions that justify a moral system can be assessed in reference to objectivity only if they are defined by the subject. (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2012) Such functional comparisons are not possible if the subject accepts some authority as the absolute source of truth. (Millar, 2011)
References
Thiroux, J.P., & Krasemann, K.W. (2012) Ethics: Theory and practice, Eleventh Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.
Flood, A. (2010) Understanding phenomenology. Nurse Researcher, 17(2), 7-15
Millar, B. (2011) Sensory phenomenology and perceptual content. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(244), 558-576
Monday, July 11, 2011
Will and Intellect
Empirical knowledge is the result of sensory experience. Comprehension is gained only through the impression of an external object. It is this extrinsic objectivity that defines the will.
“…Consciousness consists in knowing…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Perception requires a knowing subject as well as a known object. According to empiricism, the method of subject enlightenment is the process of acquaintance with the advenient world. “In all knowledge, however, the known is first and essential…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Without the influence of circumstance, the subject is unable to know anything. It is the subject who is dependent upon the object. The will is “…the thing in itself....” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.100) The subject interprets sensory information that is the consequence of the object.
The will “…constitutes the true core…” of man (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.104) It is the uniform source of motivation. The will includes the deterministic processes essential to existence. The will is the natural entity that is represented by various phenomena. It is the essence of reality. “…The will is what is primary and substantial…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It is the will in circumstance that necessitates the character of the actual.
The will “…retains everywhere its identical nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Manifestations of the will include all fundamental compulsions. “The difference lies merely in what it wills…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Gravity is the will that an object, containing potential energy in the form of positioning, descend when not physically inhibited. Hunger is the will in an organism that drives it to consume nutrients. Perpetuation is the will in information that is replicated within an ecosystem. These imperatives are not the activity of the objects. Rather, the objects are forms of the will. Without the will of gravity, the object cannot maintain a position. Without hunger, the organism cannot endure. Without perpetuation, information ceases to remain. The objective event is the actuation of the will. The physical appearance, perceived by the subject, is the consequence of the natural process.
“…The will as the thing it itself, the metaphysical in the phenomena… admits of no degrees, but is always completely itself. Only its excitement has degrees.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) There is no quantity attributed to a process. Quantification is a function of representation. Gravity, hunger and perpetuation are constant forces. Incidental differentiation is a subjective interpretation of the intellect. The degree of excitement of the will is a property of the manifestation. Gravity does not cease or wane because the object is not currently falling. While the organism may be temporally satiated, the metabolic processes are continuous. Although information may reside in a dormant state, it is perpetuated in this condition.
The will is the natural source of activity. It is without reason or morals. “Willing always goes on with perfect success…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) “…Morality is in direct opposition to the natural will…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) The only function of the will is existence. It is pure egoism. Morality is a system of control established in order to create limitations. The purpose of the will is to transcend limitation.
Functional morality is an obligation to maintain the current status. The will is a process of change. While an embodiment of the will may be a system of maintenance, this perpetuation is achieved at the expense of free energy. A living cell avoids entropic death through the destruction of order in the environment. A social law is established through the investment of resources provided by those who enforce it. Ultimately, perpetuation can only continue as long as it is the greatest of competing forms of the will. Eventually, the organism will die and the law will be broken. The final manifestation of the will is always the process in which the gross entropy of the universe increases.
A criticism of empirical philosophy is that it leads to an infinite regress of causality. If the will is the process by which an object may exist, then how did the will originate? This is a misapplication of the question. Beginning is without cause. If a cause exists for something, then that thing cannot be the beginning. To have a cause, is the definition of an effect. The will is the beginning. It is the inception of reality. If the will is understood as the source of physical law, then it is absurd to speak of a time when the physical law does not apply. Natural principles have no origin. Indeed, such laws are natural because they exist independently of invention. The existence of natural law is a means by which the will may express its form.
The will is “original and therefore metaphysical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect is “…subordinate and physical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect gains knowledge of this essence by the manifestations that induce sensation. These observable phenomena are the activity of the will. The expression of the will includes deterministic physical laws that are not naturally displayed in formula but are rather observed through their interactions and representations within physical bodies. The formulation of these laws is an activity of the intellect.
The intellect is “…a mere tool for the service of…” the will. (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It consists in the subjective function of knowing. The will is the substance of matter. The intellect is the form of this matter. The will cannot be directly observed. It is detected through the effect of a variety of actions. The operation of the will is the source of reality. The detection and interpretation of the will is the necessary exercise of the subject. It is through this system that the subject originates and continues. Without this process, the subjective intellect collapses into objectivity.
Consciousness is the highest purpose of the subject. The function of the intellect is the capacity to know of the will. “The intellect… has not merely degrees of excitement… but also degrees of its nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) “For in man not only does the faculty of ideas of perception… reach the highest degree of perfection, but the abstract idea, thought, i.e., reason, and with it reflection is added.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) Perception of an object only allows the subject to comprehend sensory impressions. Through reason, the intellect is able to know the action from which that perception originates. One who merely perceives an object only has the subjective knowledge of experience. The highest purpose of the intellect is to understand the mechanisms that necessitate that object. Abstract thought and reason allow the intellect to transcend pure perception and apprehend the true nature of the will.
From the outside looking in, the will defines the nature of reality. By means of the physical laws, the will has manifest itself in life. The ultimate purpose of this physical embodiment is sentience. In this way, the will has become conscious of itself through the intellect. It is now able to understand and interpret the existence of both the means and the end of its purpose.
From the inside looking out, the intellect experiences the universe through perception. The cause of sensation cannot be within the subject, because the subject is defined through these impressions. The external object must be the origin of these forms. The presence of physical bodies is the interpretation of the object by the intellect. This comprehension is the means by which the will is expressed though objectivity. The intellect is the mechanism through which the will has become conscious.
Resource
Schopenhauer, A. (1818) On the Primacy of the Will in Self-consciousness. In Baird, F. Walter, K. (Eds.), Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. (p. 100-124) Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
“…Consciousness consists in knowing…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Perception requires a knowing subject as well as a known object. According to empiricism, the method of subject enlightenment is the process of acquaintance with the advenient world. “In all knowledge, however, the known is first and essential…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.101) Without the influence of circumstance, the subject is unable to know anything. It is the subject who is dependent upon the object. The will is “…the thing in itself....” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.100) The subject interprets sensory information that is the consequence of the object.
The will “…constitutes the true core…” of man (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.104) It is the uniform source of motivation. The will includes the deterministic processes essential to existence. The will is the natural entity that is represented by various phenomena. It is the essence of reality. “…The will is what is primary and substantial…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It is the will in circumstance that necessitates the character of the actual.
The will “…retains everywhere its identical nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Manifestations of the will include all fundamental compulsions. “The difference lies merely in what it wills…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) Gravity is the will that an object, containing potential energy in the form of positioning, descend when not physically inhibited. Hunger is the will in an organism that drives it to consume nutrients. Perpetuation is the will in information that is replicated within an ecosystem. These imperatives are not the activity of the objects. Rather, the objects are forms of the will. Without the will of gravity, the object cannot maintain a position. Without hunger, the organism cannot endure. Without perpetuation, information ceases to remain. The objective event is the actuation of the will. The physical appearance, perceived by the subject, is the consequence of the natural process.
“…The will as the thing it itself, the metaphysical in the phenomena… admits of no degrees, but is always completely itself. Only its excitement has degrees.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) There is no quantity attributed to a process. Quantification is a function of representation. Gravity, hunger and perpetuation are constant forces. Incidental differentiation is a subjective interpretation of the intellect. The degree of excitement of the will is a property of the manifestation. Gravity does not cease or wane because the object is not currently falling. While the organism may be temporally satiated, the metabolic processes are continuous. Although information may reside in a dormant state, it is perpetuated in this condition.
The will is the natural source of activity. It is without reason or morals. “Willing always goes on with perfect success…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) “…Morality is in direct opposition to the natural will…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.108) The only function of the will is existence. It is pure egoism. Morality is a system of control established in order to create limitations. The purpose of the will is to transcend limitation.
Functional morality is an obligation to maintain the current status. The will is a process of change. While an embodiment of the will may be a system of maintenance, this perpetuation is achieved at the expense of free energy. A living cell avoids entropic death through the destruction of order in the environment. A social law is established through the investment of resources provided by those who enforce it. Ultimately, perpetuation can only continue as long as it is the greatest of competing forms of the will. Eventually, the organism will die and the law will be broken. The final manifestation of the will is always the process in which the gross entropy of the universe increases.
A criticism of empirical philosophy is that it leads to an infinite regress of causality. If the will is the process by which an object may exist, then how did the will originate? This is a misapplication of the question. Beginning is without cause. If a cause exists for something, then that thing cannot be the beginning. To have a cause, is the definition of an effect. The will is the beginning. It is the inception of reality. If the will is understood as the source of physical law, then it is absurd to speak of a time when the physical law does not apply. Natural principles have no origin. Indeed, such laws are natural because they exist independently of invention. The existence of natural law is a means by which the will may express its form.
The will is “original and therefore metaphysical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect is “…subordinate and physical.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.107) The intellect gains knowledge of this essence by the manifestations that induce sensation. These observable phenomena are the activity of the will. The expression of the will includes deterministic physical laws that are not naturally displayed in formula but are rather observed through their interactions and representations within physical bodies. The formulation of these laws is an activity of the intellect.
The intellect is “…a mere tool for the service of…” the will. (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) It consists in the subjective function of knowing. The will is the substance of matter. The intellect is the form of this matter. The will cannot be directly observed. It is detected through the effect of a variety of actions. The operation of the will is the source of reality. The detection and interpretation of the will is the necessary exercise of the subject. It is through this system that the subject originates and continues. Without this process, the subjective intellect collapses into objectivity.
Consciousness is the highest purpose of the subject. The function of the intellect is the capacity to know of the will. “The intellect… has not merely degrees of excitement… but also degrees of its nature…” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.103) “For in man not only does the faculty of ideas of perception… reach the highest degree of perfection, but the abstract idea, thought, i.e., reason, and with it reflection is added.” (Schopenhauer, 1818, p.102) Perception of an object only allows the subject to comprehend sensory impressions. Through reason, the intellect is able to know the action from which that perception originates. One who merely perceives an object only has the subjective knowledge of experience. The highest purpose of the intellect is to understand the mechanisms that necessitate that object. Abstract thought and reason allow the intellect to transcend pure perception and apprehend the true nature of the will.
From the outside looking in, the will defines the nature of reality. By means of the physical laws, the will has manifest itself in life. The ultimate purpose of this physical embodiment is sentience. In this way, the will has become conscious of itself through the intellect. It is now able to understand and interpret the existence of both the means and the end of its purpose.
From the inside looking out, the intellect experiences the universe through perception. The cause of sensation cannot be within the subject, because the subject is defined through these impressions. The external object must be the origin of these forms. The presence of physical bodies is the interpretation of the object by the intellect. This comprehension is the means by which the will is expressed though objectivity. The intellect is the mechanism through which the will has become conscious.
Resource
Schopenhauer, A. (1818) On the Primacy of the Will in Self-consciousness. In Baird, F. Walter, K. (Eds.), Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. (p. 100-124) Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)