Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts

Thursday, March 05, 2009

On Wisdom: Remoralizing Work and Celebrating Moral Exemplars

Quote of the Day, by Barry Schwartz in his TED talk: "Acknowledge when you go to law school, that a little voice talks to you about Atticus Finch, no ten-year-old goes to law school to do mergers and acquisitions...People are inspired by moral heroes.... The truth of the matter is that any interaction you have that involves other people is moral work and any moral work depends on practical wisdom. As teachers, we should strive to be ordinary heroes, the moral examplars to the people we mentor. The thing we have to remember is that we are always teaching, someone is always watching, the camera is always on."

Full talk is accessible here.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

A quip only a bioethicist might appreciate...


Overheard at a recent gathering of bioethics colleagues:

Question: Can you explain the difference between morality and ethics?

Response: Lipstick.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Bioethics: Finding Our Shared Moral Core


Under the direction and management of psychologist, author and founding member Valerie Tarico, Phd, the Wisdom Commons is one of the newest ethics initiatives of the Women’s Bioethics Project.

The purpose of the Wisdom Commons is to affirm, inspire, and shed light on humanity's shared moral core, meaning the convergence of our religious and secular wisdom traditions and emerging wisdom culture. Many times we define ourselves in terms of our differences. But the truth is that some of our deepest concerns and highest values transcend the boundaries of culture and tradition. Early in childhood, before we even can walk and talk, the moral emotions, empathy, shame, and guilt begin to emerge. They guide us as we take our first steps toward living in community with each other.

Around the world people recognize that the joy and pain of others are similar to their own joy and pain, and wisdom traditions express this through different forms of the golden rule. We also generally agree about what kind of qualities we seek in our friends, our leaders, and ourselves. These instincts, emotions, understandings and agreements form our moral core. This moral core in turn serves the well-being of the intricate web of life around us and, foremost, the well-being of humans within that web.

The Wisdom Commons belongs to all who use it and contribute to it. Members have the ability to create personal wisdom pages that include their favorite quotes, stories and so forth from the library. A personal wisdom page can also include content that is authored by that member. Over time, we seek to build a diverse community of stewards reflecting the various traditions of our users. These stewards will also create personal wisdom pages so that their core values are visible to our members and users.

The Wisdom Commons emerged out of two years of conversations among people who share a passion for these issues. It was catalyzed into existence by a five day event in April of 2008, Seeds of Compassion, the realization of a dream by the Venerable Tenzin Dhonden and Dan Kranzler of the Kirlin Foundation. Seeds of Compassion brought over 150,000 people together to discuss how best to nurture compassion in our children and communities. It was televised in 24 languages around the world.

It is impossible to acknowledge everyone who shaped or contributed to the project, but they include Valerie Tarico, Brian Arbogast, Jennifer Hobbs, Katherine Triandafilou, Porter Bayne, Kathryn Hinsch, Darcy Rubel, Yaffa Maritz, Lee Colleton, Clif Swiggett, Bruno Alabiso, Jonathan Mark, Kathy Washienko, Matt Lerner, Mike Mathieu, Laura Peterson, John Rae Grant, Brynn Arborico, Marley Arborico, Zuzana Nemcova, Iris Chamberlain, Jean Harrison, James Peterson, Ruth Lipscomb, and others.

The Wisdom Commons draws much inspiration and some of its structure and content from The Virtues Project International, which provides curriculum, training and inspirational materials that elevate virtues in every day life. Many thanks to Linda and Dan Popov and John Kavelin for their thoughtful, patient labor of love. The beauty and meditative feel of the Commons are the handiwork of Jody and Cynthia Baxter, who created WorldPrayers.org.

Please join us
.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

The "Stuff" of Morality: Is it Instinct or More?

I often ponder the morality of my motives.
Why did I really let the guy trying to cut me off on the 405 in ahead of me? Was it because I felt it was the "right" thing to do, or was it because I was just not up for the usual vehicle-to-vehicle combat, standard fare on LA's insanity-riddled freeway system? And if letting that person in was the "right" thing to do, why was it?

Or the homeless person standing in front of the fast-food, gas station or convenience store. Why would I feel compelled to hand over a few dollars to someone who would prefer asking for a hand-out, rather than becoming employed? Because I felt it truly was the "right" or moral thing to do--or for some other deeply rooted reason?

Why do any of us feel a thought or action is the morally "right" position to take under certain circumstances or in select situations? Is instinct the stimulus, or societal moral codes?

Consider the basis for the moral codes that might govern the following scenarios originally devised by psychologist Jonathan Haidt:

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?

A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.

A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.

Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It’s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.

To view the complete article by Steven Pinker for NY Times Magazine in its entirety.