Steps of Positive Change?

Contradicting the Standard Stereotypes of Emotions and Reason

There are certain stereotypes and common misconceptions about the relationship between cognition and affect. For example, it is common for people to say things that imply:

• that their emotions and reason are often in conflict with each other,
• that emotion and reason function independently of each other,
• that it is possible to be an emotional person (and hence do little reasoning),
• that it is possible to be a rational person (and hence experience little emotion)
• that rational persons are cold, mechanical, and lack such desirable traits as compassion and sympathy,
• that emotional persons are lively, energetic, and colorful (though they are poor reasoners or do not follow their reasoning when making decisions),
• In this view one must give up the possibility of a rich emotional life if one decides to become a rational person,
• Likewise, one must give up rationality if one is to live life as a passionate, highly motivated person would.

These ways of talking do not, in my view, make sense of who and what we are. Rather they support a myth that is an albatross on all our thinking about who and what we are. They lead us away from realizing that there is thinking that underlies our emotions and the emotions that drive our thinking. They lead us to think of thought and emotion as if they were oil and water, rather than inseparable constituents of human cognition. They lead us to think that there is nothing we can do to control our emotional life, when in fact there is much we can do. Ref

Emotion and Perception: The Role of Affective Information By Jonathan R. Zadra and Gerald L. Clore

Visual perception and emotion are traditionally considered separate domains of study. In this article, however, we review research showing them to be less separable that usually assumed. In fact, emotions routinely affect how and what we see. Fear, for example, can affect low-level visual processes, sad moods can alter susceptibility to visual illusions, and goal-directed desires can change the apparent size of goal-relevant objects. In addition, the layout of the physical environment, including the apparent steepness of a hill and the distance to the ground from a balcony can both be affected by emotional states. We propose that emotions provide embodied information about the costs and benefits of anticipated action, information that can be used automatically and immediately, circumventing the need for cogitating on the possible consequences of potential actions. Emotions thus provide a strong motivating influence on how the environment is perceived. Ref

Everyone loves ethics, “You” love ethics just like everyone does in relation to themselves, “you” love ethics (you are happy for others to treat you ethically). Maybe, you like many of us, can miss this ontology of social interaction which makes everyone love ethics, and how this fact is not just a morality fact but also just a fact of our being a social animal: we love ethics towards themselves so we just need the rationalism and humanism to sometimes grasp the need to extend this to others as we are just a different “them” and they too are just a different “me” (a human being).

Ethics are the standard used to support and respect rights, the value of rights is the person, that a high standard of ethics wishes to adhere to. A good person helps themselves, yet a great person my friend is found when one helps others. I am saying all one must be to be good is done to themselves, Whereas, the fullness of good, to the level of or state of greatness, happens when one helps others. Kindness is hard at times, as it often requires a death of my ego to allow the life of my potential for empathy and care.

Being mean is easy. I wish to do what can be hard; kindness. Being mean is easy it takes nothing but loss of control, which I am still too often prone to falling into. That said I would like to strive to be kind even it is not extended to me as I don’t want to just follow my weakness I wish to champion my strength, as I wish to more than just not lousing control I wish to be the one in control exhibiting if I can live up to it an example of bravery. This bravery is not out of bravado but the flushing of negative in a heart set free, to me the fact that I strive a young life of profound unkindness almost ruined me forever. I want to be more than the pain that made me or the abuse and unkindness that all but unsaved me. I could be the nothing or the everything if I choose, what was done it out of my control but what I do is not just in my control, it is as if I have all my life been lost if an attitude of attack but now with axiology, humanism and rationalism on a quest like gilded Knights of long ago to perjure a beloved treasure.

I see now, as one who was to often as a child not shown kindness, that life’s journey is made wealthy by the added a human behavioral health resource treasure, a wellspring of renewing, which in found in kindness. I wish to be so strung I have no fear of looking weak and instead show others what a life now bent on helping can really be, when I am brave in my kindness. Anyone can be kind to the kind even a madman but to be sure-footed to travail and be the better person is a gift I give to myself as I am going to do my best to make the world I would be proud to tell others about. It is not a meaningful argument to say well some disagree wanting the freedom to be untrustworthy, unsafe, and not free to all employees or the public with good adherence to high valued behaviors. The fact that there are thieves mean nothing in relation to the unethics of stealing.

Societies, all of them even anarchist ones except for maybe some version of anarcho-primitivism, will hold an ethic even if it is as simple as the principle of non-aggression. Which is enforced if it is violated. It is enforcing a societal ethic expectation or a universal ethical standard, So, again we all love ethics in how others treat us, people only want it confused so much, when and if it requires them to apply ethics to others. But again this is a self-beneficial as theirs is a connection too good and well being.

Grasping ethics to me involves a reconnecting of it to the ontology of humans in the social moral train they cannot escape “We are Moral responsible beings. This fact is more important hen some preserve; it requires our personal as well as social advancement to succeed. Could we not succeed? Sure we can fail but what good is that and even if we do succumb to unethics, hell we seem bent on doing such at times. However, we are doing so at our own emotional pearl, then just a thing that is some ethic behavioral gift one gives to others. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201006/ethical-thinking-should-be-rational-and-emotional

I try not to believe everything I think and only believe deeply in things with some amount of valid and reliable, reason and evidence. Moreover, I strive to stay in an open relationship with the truth thus be open to new truth. I try to be multicultural but never confuse this to be cultural relativism.

Some commit the error of assuming that the multiculturalist position necessarily implies an attitude of cultural relativism, or is subsumed under it. Observe the thinking of one of the most prominent advocates of multiculturalism: Canada’s Will Kymlicka. He includes under this heading all approaches which maintain that there are certain claims made by ethnic / cultural groups which are in keeping with the liberal principles of freedom and equality, and which justify granting certain special rights to minorities. Thus multiculturalism “in contrast to communitarianism“ does not stand in opposition to liberalism; rather, a liberal order is a condition of multiculturalism’s very existence. So Kymlicka terms his position “liberal culturalism.” The multiculturalist calls for certain group rights as complementary to the liberal order that until now has borne the stamp of the white, middle-aged, heterosexual male with no disabilities. But the liberal order claims universal “not relative“ validity. Hence the multiculturalist advocates a monistic or pluralistic world view, not one of cultural relativism! Ref

Individualism or Collectivism?

Rather than a collectivist which I do favore over individualism, I value the inbetween of mutualism thinking. I do see a point in not losing one’s rightful individualism in complete group emotion to the point this is one’s identity as only a group seems less than a helpful universal standard but also we are not being helpful in exclusionary individualism denying our group connectedness and support. I am thus in the land between some collectivist ideals but understanding or appreciate the understanding even if in a group am always an individual. not as a attitude but as this is how I actually think we are: the ontologically of social environment and the responding psychology and biology.

To me, when I refer to a muralist seeing that the group is not an individual neather is one only able to concern themselves with themselves and thrive to wellbeing past survive or selfishness of only irritating ones self to the limits of individualism with always be a respite of one that only hold a self understanding to navigate the world a non-individualism structure at the core of most societies, that one can get outside of mentally but not really internationally with the requirements social living with other humans in a society, something we have been doing thought not always very well and often keep going back to the limit of flushing of everyone including ones self actions have emotional consequences and often emotional consequences bring phical problems in us and other in which we inter relate.

Rationalism and Humanism?

According to Psychology Wiki: Rationalism, also known as the rationalist movement, is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth can best be discovered by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching. Rationalism has some similarities in ideology and intent to humanism and atheism, in that it aims to provide a framework for social and philosophical discourse outside of religious or supernatural beliefs; however, rationalism differs from both of these, in that:

“As its name suggests, humanism is centered on the dignity and worth of people. While rationalism is a key component of humanism, there is also a strong ethical component in humanism that rationalism does not require directly but towards thinking. As a result, being a rationalist does not necessarily mean being a humanist.”

Atheism, a disbelief or lack of belief in God, can be on any basis, or none at all, so it doesn’t require rationalism. Furthermore, rationalism does not, in itself, affirm or deny atheism, although it does reject any belief based on faith alone. Historically, many rationalists were not atheists. Presumably, people who are rationalists today generally do not believe that theism can be rationally justified, because modern-day rationalism is strongly correlated with atheism. As a result, most—if not all—prominent rationalists today, including scientists such as Richard Dawkins and activists such as Sanal Edamaruku are atheists. Ref Or lesser prominent is Damien Marie AtHope who champions rationalism, atheism and humanism.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Level 1 – Pre-conventional morality:

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules. Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.

• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 – Conventional morality:

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

Level 3 – Post-conventional morality:

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get. Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g. human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Methods

1. The dilemmas are artificial (i.e. they lack ecological validity)

Most of the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people (Rosen, 1980). For example, it is all very well in the Heinz dilemma asking subjects whether Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife. However Kohlberg’s subjects were aged between 10 and 16. They have never been married, and never been placed in a situation remotely like the one in the story. How should they know whether Heinz should steal the drug?

2. The sample is biased

According to Gilligan (1977), because Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens’ morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while womens’ is based on principles of compassion and care. Further, the gender bias issue raised by Gilligan is a reminded of the significant gender debate still present in psychology, which when ignored, can have a large impact on the results obtained through psychological research.

3. The dilemmas are hypothetical (i.e. they are not real)

In a real situation, what course of action a person takes will have real consequences – and sometimes very unpleasant ones for themselves. Would subjects reason in the same way if they were placed in a real situation? We just don’t know. The fact that Kohlberg’s theory is heavily dependent on an individual’s response to an artificial dilemma brings question to the validity of the results obtained through this research.  People may respond very differently to real life situations that they find themselves in than they do with an artificial dilemma presented to them in the comfort of a research environment.

4. Poor research design

The way in which Kohlberg carried out his research when constructing this theory may not have been the best way to test whether all children follow the same sequence of stage progression. His research was cross-sectional, meaning that he interviewed children of different ages to see what level of moral development they were at. A better way to see if all children follow the same order through the stages would have been to carry out longitudinal research on the same children. However, longitudinal research on Kohlberg’s theory has since been carried out by Colby et al. (1983) who tested 58 male participants of Kohlberg’s original study. She tested them 6 times in the span of 27 years and found support for Kohlberg’s original conclusion, that we all pass through the stages of moral development in the same order.

Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory

1. Are there distinct stages of moral development?

Kohlberg claims that there are but the evidence does not always support this conclusion. For example a person who justified a decision on the basis of principled reasoning in one situation (post conventional morality stage 5 or 6) would frequently fall back on conventional reasoning (stage 3 or 4) with another story. In practice it seems that reasoning about right and wrong depends more upon the situation than upon general rules. What is more individuals do not always progress through the stages and Rest (1979) found that one in fourteen actually slipped backwards. The evidence for distinct stages of moral development looks very weak and some would argue that behind the theory is a culturally biased belief in the superiority of American values over those of other cultures and societies.

2. Does moral judgement match moral behavior?

Kohlberg never claimed that there would be a one to one correspondence between thinking and acting (what we say and what we do) but he does suggest that the two are linked. However, Bee (1994) suggests that we also need to take account of:

1. a) habits that people have developed over time.

1. b) whether people see situations as demanding their participation.

1. c) the costs and benefits of behaving in a particular way.

1. d) competing motive such as peer pressure, self interest and so on.

Overall Bee points out that moral behavior is only partly a question of moral reasoning. It is also to do with social factors.

3. Is justice the most fundamental moral principle?

This is Kohlberg’s view. However, Gilligan (1977) suggests that the principle of caring for others is equally important. Furthermore Kohlberg claims that the moral reasoning of males has been often in advance of that of females. Girls are often found to be at stage 3 in Kohlberg’s system (good boy-nice girl orientation) whereas boys are more often found to be at stage 4 (Law and Order orientation). Gilligan replies:

“The very traits that have traditionally defined the goodness of women, their care for and sensitivity to the needs of others, are those that mark them out as deficient in moral development.”

In other words, Gilligan is claiming that there is a sex bias in Kohlberg’s theory. He neglects the feminine voice of compassion, love and non-violence, which is associated with the socialization of girls. Gilligan reached the conclusion that Kohlberg’s theory did not account for the fact that women approach moral problems from an ‘ethics of care’, rather than an ‘ethics of justice’ perspective, which challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of Kohlberg’s theory.

But as I see it both Gilligan as well as Kohlberg is on the right tracts because: Ethical Thinking or Moral Reasoning Should be “Rational AND Emotional.”

Progressive Logic by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Summary: What are the implications of Formal Axiology for assessing the value implications of public policies, laws, and government actions?This can already be seen in the history of Progressive reforms throughout American history. What does the Abolition movement have in common with the anti-child labor movement, the demands for compulsory public education, pro-choice, euthanasia, criminal justice reform, and other public policies considered“progressive”?

Progressive Logic

Shows that the common element is a logic of values which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.”From this primary value axiom two “fallacies” and two “enhancements” follow.Value Fallacies:The Ideological Fallacy — to value ideas over persons.The Instrumental Fallacy — to value persons solely for their usefulness.Value Enhancements:The Ideological Enhancement — using ideas to enhance or enrich the lives of persons.The Instrumental Enhancement — using persons to enhance or enrich their lives.These principles of value logic are applied to numerous aspects of American life,culture, and public policies. Ref

---

“Morality requires both thinking and feeling.”

---