Hegel

2020 ◽  
pp. 220-225
Author(s):  
Terence Irwin

Hegel believes that we can grasp the character of morality by reflexion on different aspects of the rational will. In willing we will a particular goal, but we also will it as our own goal, as the goal of a rational agent who has other ends. As rational agents we apply critical standards to the goals that we will. Kant is right to argue that morality includes these critical standards, but (as Schopenhauer argues) he is wrong to suppose that the critical standards alone give us the true content of morality. We find the correct morality in so far as we find the goals that meet the right critical standards; these are the goals that fully realize the nature of the rational agent. If we find these goals, we overcome (contrary to Schopenhauer) any opposition between self-interest and morality.

2020 ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Terence Irwin

According to Schopenhauer, Kant is right on two points: (1) Morality is to be separated from self-interest. (2) The categorical imperative states a universal law for all rational agents. But Kant is wrong to believe that his second point supports the first. The only purely rational aspect of morality is a demand for consistency that is compatible with any content whatever. We understand morality only when we see that it rests on compassion for others, which moves us to care about the welfare and suffering of others for their own sake. The right moral outlook requires us to overcome two errors about the reality of other people: (1) Egoism rests on failure to recognize that other people are just as real as I am. (2) Compassion requires us to see that there is no real distinction between myself and other people.


Author(s):  
Giovanni Merlo

AbstractTo qualify as a fully rational agent, one must be able rationally to revise one’s beliefs in the light of new evidence. This requires, not only that one revise one’s beliefs in the right way, but also that one do so as a result of appreciating the evidence on the basis of which one is changing one’s mind. However, the very nature of belief seems to pose an obstacle to the possibility of satisfying this requirement – for, insofar as one believes that p, any evidence that not-p will strike one as misleading and, on the face of it, believing that a certain piece of evidence is misleading is incompatible with appreciating the fact that such evidence should bear on the question at hand. Call this the ‘Paradox of Belief Revision’. This paper introduces the Paradox of Belief Revision, compares it with Kripke’s Dogmatism Paradox, and suggests that we may be able to see a way out of the former if we assume that rational agents are systematically aware of their own beliefs as beliefs they have.


Author(s):  
Lodiana Nitti ◽  
Friandry Windisany Thoomaszen

ABSTRACT Parental perception will affect the fulfillment of children’s participation rights. Fullfilment of children’s participation rights will be fulfilled optimally if parents pay anttention to opinions while providing opportunities for children to make and make decisions about the child’s goals and self-interest. The subjects studied consisted of 5 subjects consisting of father and mother who had children aged 9- 12 years. This study uses qualitative research methods, with data retrieval tools in teh form of interviews, observation and documentation. From the research found data were the subjects do not fulfill the right of participation of children up to the maximum ladder where children’s participation rights range from the first ladder to the third ladder. The first ladder to the third ladder is actually a non- participating ladder. This means that children is manipulated, dominated by parents, there is direct communation and the severity of the parent. The children felt disappointed, sad, and angry with the parents but they still tried to hear and obey the parent’s decision. Children from third and fourth subjects experienced excessive fear to speak to their parent (father). Suggestions for parents to be more caring and fulfill the rights of children’s participation so as not to affect the growth and development of children. Keywords: participation rights, children, parents


Author(s):  
Joshua May

This chapter considers remaining empirical challenges to the idea that we’re commonly motivated to do what’s right for the right reasons. Two key factors threaten to defeat claims to virtuous motivation, self-interest (egoism) and arbitrary situational factors (situationism). Both threats aim to identify defective influences on moral behavior that reveal us to be commonly motivated by the wrong reasons. However, there are limits to such wide-ranging skeptical arguments. Ultimately, like debunking arguments, defeater challenges succumb to a Defeater’s Dilemma: one can identify influences on many of our morally relevant behaviors that are either substantial or arbitrary, but not both. The science suggests a familiar trade-off in which substantial influences on many morally relevant actions are rarely defective. Arriving at this conclusion requires carefully scrutinizing a range of studies, including those on framing effects, dishonesty, implicit bias, mood effects, and moral hypocrisy (vs. integrity).


Author(s):  
Joshua May

This chapter introduces the long-standing idea that inappropriate motives, such as self-interest, can militate against virtuous motivation (acting for the right reasons). Some theorists have tried to show that we are universally egoistic by appeal to empirical research, particularly evolutionary theory, moral development, and the neuroscience of learning. However, these efforts fail and instead decades of experiments on helping behavior provide powerful evidence that we are capable of genuine altruism. We can be motivated ultimately by a concern for others for their own sake, especially when empathizing with them. The evidence does not show that empathy blurs the distinction between self and other in a way that makes helping behavior truly egoistic or non-altruistic. Whether grounded in Christian love (agape) or the Buddhist notion of no-self (anātman), such self-other merging proposals run into empirical and conceptual difficulties.


2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Cox ◽  
Stephen C. Hayne

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (4II) ◽  
pp. 493-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taseer Salahuddin ◽  
Asad Zaman

In the recent literature, consensus has emerged that poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon; see Alkire and Santos (2010) for a review of the major arguments. Nonetheless, the most widely used measures of poverty remain unidimensional, being based on income or caloric intake cutoffs. The logic for the use of income based measures was that it was only lack of income which led to deprivation—with sufficient income; rational agents would automatically eliminate deprivations in all dimensions in the right sequence of priorities. However, careful studies like Thorbecke (2005) and Banerjee and Duflo (2006) show that this does not happen. Even while malnourished and underfed, the poor spend significant portions of their budgets on festivals, weddings, alcohol, tobacco and other non-essential items. The move from abstract theoretical speculation based on mathematical models of human behaviour to experiments and observations of actual behaviour has led to dramatic changes in the understanding of poverty and how to alleviate it. Some of these insights are encapsulated in a new approach to poverty advocated by Banerjee and Duflo (2011).


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben M Tappin ◽  
Valerio Capraro

Prosociality is fundamental to human social life, and, accordingly, much research has attempted to explain human prosocial behavior. Capraro and Rand (Judgment and Decision Making, 13, 99-111, 2018) recently provided experimental evidence that prosociality in anonymous, one-shot interactions (such as Prisoner’s Dilemma and Dictator Game experiments) is not driven by outcome-based social preferences – as classically assumed – but by a generalized morality preference for “doing the right thing”. Here we argue that the key experiments reported in Capraro and Rand (2018) comprise prominent methodological confounds and open questions that bear on influential psychological theory. Specifically, their design confounds: (i) preferences for efficiency with self-interest; and (ii) preferences for action with preferences for morality. Furthermore, their design fails to dissociate the preference to do “good” from the preference to avoid doing “bad”. We thus designed and conducted a preregistered, refined and extended test of the morality preference hypothesis (N=801). Consistent with this hypothesis, our findings indicate that prosociality in the anonymous, one-shot Dictator Game is driven by preferences for doing the morally right thing. Inconsistent with influential psychological theory, however, our results suggest the preference to do “good” was as potent as the preference to avoid doing “bad” in this case.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Maximiliano Senci ◽  
Hipólito Hasrun ◽  
Rodrigo Moro ◽  
Esteban Freidin

In most bribery games in the literature, there is no mention of rights and duties associated to participants’ roles. Authors have hitherto relied on loaded frames, negative externalities, and the possibility of sanctions to implicitly signal prescriptive norms. We argue that participants’ interpretation of these factors may not be univocal. In this study, a participant in the role of a common citizen either did or did not acquire the right to obtain a monetary benefit and could offer a bribe to an associated participant in the role of public official. This participant, in turn, had an explicit duty of providing the benefit only if the citizen acquired the right to it. Conditions with/without the acquisition of the right were crossed with the presence/absence of negative externalities associated with transgressions of the official’s duty. One last (fifth) condition mimicked other bribery games in the literature which rely on loaded frames and negative externalities but no information on rights and duties. We found that both the presence of externalities and information about rights were effective bribery deterrents, and that bribe offers and acceptances were most discouraged with their synergic effect. Interestingly, officials followed prescriptive information even when it was inefficient to do so (when there were no externalities), and implied choosing against their material self-interest (by rejecting a bribe), and not reciprocating bribe offers. We conclude by highlighting the limits of making generalizations from results without explicit normative information and the relevance of present findings as anti-corruption behavioral insights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-50
Author(s):  
Nadirsah Hawari ◽  
Rachma Octariani ◽  
Eva Rosalia ◽  
Sinta Arifka ◽  
Asep Candra

Abstract According to Islamic Shari'a, holding a public office is not a right for an individual, but an obligation for the State. Therefore, the government, both the regional head and all its officials, must select the most suitable and most suitable person for every government job. It should not be made of nepotism by looking at kinship, friendship, or faction from any relationship with the eligibility of someone to hold a position .The existing rulers should appoint officials from the best people (al-ashlah), the Prophet said which means "whoever holds a Muslim's business (meaning being a ruler) then he appoints someone to be an official even though he knows there are more people good for (benefit) of the Muslims, then really he has betrayed Allah and His Messenger "(Ibn Taimiyah). If the head of state or other officials do not find the right person for a certain position, in this situation they must choose the person who is more representative. Representative here means the person who is the most appropriate from the one for each government position. And also in this selection process, the head of state and other officials must know about the standards of eligibility al-quwwah (strength) and al-amanah (trust). Al-Quwwah is the ability and feasibility of a job assignment. Whereas trusteeship is a behavior that focuses on the management process regarding the position or function of a position that is in accordance with Islamic Shari'a with the intention of only devoting to Allah and not based on fear of humans and expecting their self-interest. nominating yourself is required to convey the vision and mission and the state program that will be implemented. In this case, the community or community is very necessary to obtain information on the candidate pairs who nominate themselves, and the campaign that can be used as a means of communicating politics and public education. The leaders, servants of the State, civil servants or the military, judges and so on, are essentially representations of the voices of the people they lead. The leaders are no more than public servants who must devote and dedicate their leadership to the benefit of the people. The leaders are only representatives of the fulfillment of the rights of the people, so that they are obliged to run the government properly.    Abstrak Menurut syariat islam, memegang suatu jabatan-jabatan umum bukanlah hak  bagi individu, melainkan kewajiban atasnya bagi Negara. Oleh sebab itu, pemerintah baik kepala daerah dan seluruh pejabatnya harus menyeleksi orang yang paling cocok dan paling layak bagi setiap pekerjaan pemerintahan.Tidak boleh beerbuat nepotisme dengan memandang kekerabatan, persahabatan, atau golongan dari manapun yang tidak ada hubunngannya dengan kelayakan seseorang untuk memegang suatu jabatan.Para penguasa yang telah ada hendaknya mengangkat para pejabat dari orang orang terbaik (al-ashlah), Nabi bersabda yang artinya“barang siapa memegang suatu urusan kaum muslimin (maksudnya menjadi penguasa) kemudian ia mengangkat seseorang menjadi pejabat padahal ia mengetahui ada orang yang lebih baik bagi (kemaslahatan) kaum muslimin, maka sungguh ia telah mengkhianati Allah dan Rasul-Nya” (Ibnu Taimiyah).Apabila kepala Negara atau para pejabat lainnya tidak menemukan orang yang tepat untuk suatu jabatan tertentu, dalam keadaan ini mereka harus memilih orang yang lebih representative. Representative disini memiliki arti yakni orang yang paling tepat dari yang ada untuk setiap jabatan pemerintahan. Dan juga dalam proses penyeleksian ini, kepala Negara dan pejabat lainnya harus mengetahui tentang standar kelayakan  al-quwwah (kekuatan) dan al-amanah (kepercayaan).Al-Quwwah ialah kemampuan dan kelayakan suatu tugas jabatan. Sedangkan amanah, merupakan perilaku yang dititik beratkan pada proses  pengelolaan perihal jabatan atau fungsi dari suatu jabatan yang sesuai dengan syariat islam dengan niat hanya bertaqwa kepada Allah dan bukan berdasar pada ketakutan kepada manusia dan mengharap pamrih dari mereka.Didalam pelaksanaan kampanye, pasangan calon kandidat yang mencalonkan diri diharuskan untuk menyampaikan visi dan misi serta program kenegaraan yang akan dijalankan. Dalam hal ini, umat atau khalayak masyarakat sangat perlu untuk memperoleh informasi atas pasangan calon kandidat yang mencalonkan diri tersebut, dan kampanyelah yang dapat dijadikan sebagai sarana berkomunikasi politik dan pendidikan masyarakat. Para pemimpin, abdi Negara, pegawai sipil atau militer, hakim dan lain sebagainya, pada hakikatnya merupakan representasi suara rakyat yang mereka pimpin. Para pemimpin tidaklah lebih dari pelayan masyarakat yang harus mengabdikan dan mendedikasikan kepemimpinannya untuk kemaslahatan rakyat. Para pemimpin hanyalah wakil akan pemenuh hak hak umat, sehingga mereka wajib menjalankan roda pemerintahan dengan baik.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document