7 Worldviews - Modes of Ethical Reasoning

[Mithrandir]

I've been revisiting a series of lectures by Daniel Sheehan that I watched 8-10 years ago, and decided to make a summary of the information he provides regarding the 7 modes of ethical reasoning. This model was originally developed and taught by Dr. Talcott Parsons at Harvard (originally 5 modes), further developed by Dr. Ralph Potter at Harvard, who mentored under Parsons, and further developed into the present form by Daniel Sheehan who studied under Parsons for his doctorate work at Harvard. He is the one presenting it in these lectures for the Romero Institute.

This summary is taken from the information provided by Sheehan primarily in these two lectures:

Daniel Sheehan: Political Philosophy and Worldviews - Nov 24, 2014​

Modes of Ethical Reasoning - Trajectory of Justice: 4-16-2015​

I recommend watching both lecture series to get the full context, but the model correlates with the idea presented by Dr. Crane Brinton in his final lecture on Dec 20, 1967 that the most important single intellectual insight of his 50 years at Harvard is that the greatest minds of the human family have come to the common conclusion that humanity is on the brink of the next step of biological evolution, which is the development of a human faculty to directly perceive and experience the unitive phenomenon that binds the universe in a unified harmonic whole. Essentially, where one falls on this model of ethical reasoning depends on how developed their faculty is for perceiving this phenomenon.

Ralph Potter's development concluded that ones worldview could be determined by how they instinctively answer the 4 fundamental questions of ultimate reality. Those 4 questions are:
- Cosmological: how did all we experience come into existence?
- Teleological: how is this manifest reality actually unfolding?
- Ontological: how did consciousness come into being?
- Epistemological: what are the means by which humans can answer the cosmic questions and acquire knowledge?

A cohesive and consistent answer to these questions, as Sheehan presents it will put you somewhere on the continuum of the 7 following worldviews:


1st paradigm - Authoritarian

summary: Views the universe as chaotic; ethical reasoning is based on power assertion and control

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: random and chaotic big bang, every unit of matter repels every other, moving away from each other, and will eventually disintegrate into nothing; consciousness is just an epiphenomenon between mass and energy, is random, and we can only perceive with the 5 senses; truth cannot be known, only created

Mode of ethical reasoning: the world is chaos and the only order is the assertion of their will; expand power, control, and dominion; there is no context for the value of life

notes: Warlords, Ghengis Khan, brute force, no thic, no reference for right and wrong, materialist, insatiable immediate self-gratification

Philosophical correlates: Epicurius / Callicius, might makes right, Nihilism
Spiritual expression correlates: Atheism, Materialism, (intellectual authoritarian)


2nd paradigm - Reactionary

summary: Sees the cosmos as cyclical; ethical decisions arise from binary distinctions of good and evil

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: the cosmos has always been there, ordered, eternally oscillating, cyclical, binary, and deterministic; universe expands to a point of stasis, then retracts back to the original state of big bang, then starts over; we physically manifest and become conscious mechanically as the universe expands; due to this oscillation, hardwired, binary perception of reality, can sense the expansion and contraction

Mode of ethical reasoning: binary, choose a side between good and evil, competition between A and B, deep conviction that there is an ultimate “other” threatening them

notes: tribal, good vs bad, dark vs light, yin vs yang, life vs death, etc.; fascists, state corporate capitalists, state communists, nationalism, fundamentalism; gain meaning from choosing a side

Philosophical correlates: Hegel Dialectics
Spiritual expression correlates: Fundamentalism, Taoism, dialectic dualism


3rd paradigm - Conservative

summary: Believes in an ordered oscillating cosmos and projects future ethical decisions based on past patterns

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: cosmos has always been there, ordered, eternally oscillating, expanding and contracting; we can influence the mechanical properties of the oscillating universe by making existential decisions with our intellect and we can alter the course of human destiny by exerting our will; we can determine with the mind historical patterns of how the world works and project alternate futures and choose one

Mode of ethical reasoning: choose a projected future and behave as if it is true through an act of will; use patterns of the past to project into the future and make choices that maintain it, prevent change, and feel secure in their interests; right and wrong is determined by choosing a path

notes: form nation-state in its basic form

Philosophical correlates: Existentialism
Spiritual expression correlates: Existentialism, historical projection, quest for meaning


4th paradigm - Moderate

summary: Agnostic about ultimate realities; relies on empirical evidence for utilitarian policies

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: agnostic towards cosmology, teleology, and ontology; epistemology: only the 5 senses, gather data, should not project with the mind or choose a path; mind is for theorizing only, and only information derived from physical data can progress knowledge

Mode of ethical reasoning: will not take a position on ultimate reality that they do not have definitive answers to; utilitarian, pragmatically choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people (virtually mathematical)

notes: agnostic to cosmological questions, scientific community, materialists, no ultimate conclusion, expanding knowledge, willing to change and amend thesis, post-modernism(ish); will not acknowledge the veracity of anything that is not physically repeatable

Philosophical correlates: Majoritarian, Utilitarian, Scientific Logical Positivism
Spiritual expression correlates: Agnosticism


5th paradigm - Liberal

summary: Recognizes multiple faculties for understanding harmony, combining data and intuition in ethical reasoning

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: conscious admission that there may be another faculty of the human mind to discern the one-ness or harmony of the universe, unitive phenomenon; supplement data with intuition

Mode of ethical reasoning: supplement with intuition to choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but at the same time at least provides subsistence for the least well off; distribution of resources that the least have access to, up to a point that doesn’t affect production and control of the world.

Philosophical correlates: Plato / Socrates
Spiritual expression correlates: Unitarianism, Humanism


6th paradigm - Progressive

summary: Views the universe as interconnected; Intuition guides policies for the greatest good, emphasizing distributive justice

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: universe was always here; universe is bonded together into one radical whole; full recognition and adoption of the faculty of the human mind to discern one-ness or harmony of the universe; intuition is primary; discerning “natural law” is the referent for right and wrong

Mode of ethical reasoning: primarily use intuition to choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but at the same time provides subsistence for the least well off; full adoption of distribution of resources that the least have access to; distributive justice: recognition of human need of basic resources over contribution, a matter of justice, not charity

notes: strive for harmony with “natural law” to achieve happiness. U. S. Constitution

Philosophical correlates: Pathagoras
Spiritual expression correlates: Pantheism, radical Monism, “Natural Law”


7th paradigm - Utopian

summary: Sees the universe as conscious, aiming for transcendence; ethical reasoning prioritizes the collective well-being

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: universe unfolded out of an eternal sea of undifferentiated consciousness; particles of the universe are bits of consciousness; consciousness permeates the entire physical world; escaton, evolving over time to transcend from the material world into a state of unconditioned being and bliss as the world expands; experience of “being” when properly freed from its material encasement, will be unified with the eternal consciousness and no longer a separate “self”; complete control of faculty to discern one-ness or harmony of the universe; observe oneness, calm, and being through meditation

Mode of ethical reasoning: using the faculty of unitive phenomenon to selflessly choose and enact policies predicated on the well-being of the whole world and everyone in it; transcend the bounds of “self”

Philosophical correlates: Stoic - Pre-Socratic
Spiritual expression correlates: Panentheism, Emminationism


Sheehan also noted that the 7 worldviews correlate with the 7 Chakras that have been observed and practiced for millenia in the eastern part of the world. These Chakra are locations in the body that have been observed to have electromatic signatures that may influence how we interperet our experience of reality.


I'm curious your thoughts and experiences on all this. Do you think this model is corroborated in your personal interpretation of reality? Where would you fall on this continuum and why? How do you feel about this being taught at Harvard?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

PRIMAL ETHICS

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

 

[Mithrandir]

PRIMAL ETHICS

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

This corresponds to 1st-2nd paradigm.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This corresponds to 1st-2nd paradigm.

zero "binary distinctions of good and evil"

each individual is sovereign

 

[fractalwalrus]

PRIMAL ETHICS

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

This corresponds to 1st-2nd paradigm.

What if I told you, it is in the interests of yourself, your family, and your property to live in a utopia?

 

[Mithrandir]

This corresponds to 1st-2nd paradigm.

zero "binary distinctions of good and evil"

each individual is sovereign

Depends on if you consider family as an extension of self. If so, than 1st paradigm. If not, then tribal, us vs. them, binary.

 

[Mithrandir]

PRIMAL ETHICS

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

This corresponds to 1st-2nd paradigm.

What if I told you, it is in the interests of yourself, your family, and your property to live in a utopia?

1st paradigm has a drive to assert control, because they perceive the world as chaotic, and the only order is the one they create for themselves. This would not be satisfied in a utopia where everyone is completely selfless. There is no context for them in which to perceive another life as having intrinsic value.

edit: for clarity

 

[fractalwalrus]

PRIMAL ETHICS

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

This corresponds to 1st-2nd paradigm.

What if I told you, it is in the interests of yourself, your family, and your property to live in a utopia?

1st paradigm has a drive to assert control, because they perceive the world as chaotic, and the only order is the one they create for themselves. This would not be satisfied in a utopia where everyone is completely selfless. There is no context for them in which another life has intrinsic value.

Who says people would have to be completely selfless in a Utopia? What does it even mean to be "completely selfless?"

the world is chaos and the only order is the assertion of their will; expand power, control, and dominion; there is no context for the value of life

I've heard some people who make videos online decree the "horrors of chaos" a lot. Maybe it is fear that drives the orderers of chaos. So maybe the 1st paradigm is inherently fear-based. I'm not refuting this point, btw, simply making a possible connection between fear and the desire to control things. Then again, lust and greed motivate as well.

choose a side between good and evil, competition between A and B, deep conviction that there is an ultimate “other” threatening them

Basic in-group out-group politics. Perhaps also related to fear.

use patterns of the past to project into the future and make choices that maintain it, prevent change, and feel secure in their interests; right and wrong is determined by choosing a path

So INTJs?

pragmatically choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people (virtually mathematical)

Well, the probability is, the chooser of policies would be included as a beneficiary of this good outcome.

at the same time at least provides subsistence for the least well off; distribution of resources that the least have access to, up to a point that doesn’t affect production and control of the world.

So, it would seem to me here, that the prior paradigm to this one would be more beneficial for a greater number of people since the prior paradigm does not indicate any restriction over the "production and control" of the world when justifying the application of a particular utilitarian solution.

recognition of human need of basic resources over contribution, a matter of justice, not charity

What's the distinction between justice and charity as motives for helping the poor?

enact policies predicated on the well-being of the whole world and everyone in it; transcend the bounds of “self”

Well, the world is full of selves, methinks. I'm sure they would benefit from this arrangement.


Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory

 

[Mithrandir]

Who says people would have to be completely selfless in a Utopia? What does it even mean to be "completely selfless?"

Life is no longer about self-interest. You only perceive yourself as part of the whole with no distinction of interests.

pragmatically choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people (virtually mathematical)

Well, the probability is, the chooser of policies would be included as a beneficiary of this good outcome.

Sure, but you would have no grounds to oppose slavery, for example. Because whatever benefits the most people is the "good".

recognition of human need of basic resources over contribution, a matter of justice, not charity

What's the distinction between justice and charity as motives for helping the poor?

Justice would be it's a right, part of "Natural Law". Charity would just be an optional act of the giver.

enact policies predicated on the well-being of the whole world and everyone in it; transcend the bounds of “self”

Well, the world is full of selves, methinks. I'm sure they would benefit from this arrangement.

But at transcendence, "self" has no meaning, only the harmonic whole. So utopian would be devastating to "selves" by definition.

 

[Mithrandir]

Who says people would have to be completely selfless in a Utopia? What does it even mean to be "completely selfless?"

Oh, also, don't confuse the utopian worldview with living in a utopia. One is a worldview, the other just describes a society. You can have a utopian worldview and not live in a utopia, for example.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Life is no longer about self-interest. You only perceive yourself as part of the whole with no distinction of interests.

And does the whole have its own interests?

Sure, but you would have no grounds to oppose slavery, for example. Because whatever benefits the most people is the "good".

The calculus of all this can be tricky sometimes. For example, is it in the great good of the greatest many that in a situation where 1000 papercuts must be distributed among 1000 people that 1 person receive the full amount of papercuts, or that 1000 people receive 1 papercut? If hard physical labor is taxing and unpleasant, is it utilitarian to concentrate it onto the hands of a few for the benefits of the many? Perhaps 1000 papercuts dished out to one individual would have an effect on the body that would be more detrimental to the individual than could simply be reduced to the examination of the damage done by one papercut multiplied 1000 times. If this were true, then maybe there is a crucial threshold of papercuts distributed that, when crossed, exceeds the additive damage of the sum of the damage of one papercut. Should this maximum amount of tolerable papercuts be used to and divied out to as many of the 1000 individuals necessary whilst sparing the rest?

Justice would be it's a right, part of "Natural Law". Charity would just be an optional act of the giver.

Some would argue charity to be a part of "natural law," thereby rendering this a false dichotomy. As per wikipedia:

"Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of natural order and human nature, from which values, thought by natural law's proponents to be intrinsic to human nature, can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society)."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law]

And as for charity:

"The question of why any creatures are altruistic at all obsessed Charles Darwin from the time he devised his theory of evolution. Since then, two complex schools of scientific thought have emerged. One argues that altruism exists because it helps ensure the survival of close kin. Various researchers have also highlighted the merits of the view that helping may maximize the survival odds of each member of a society. That would mean that behaving less selfishly isn't just a way of protecting close family members; it might also be a way for individuals to improve their own prospects by contributing to the well-being of a strong collective."


https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/news/hard-wired-for-giving/

But at transcendence, "self" has no meaning, only the harmonic whole. So utopian would be devastating to "selves" by definition.

So if I were to transcend, would I cease to have conscious experience, or would it be more like a situation where I would be disregarding my own desires?

You can have a utopian worldview and not live in a utopia, for example.

Of course. I'd say most people with a "utopian" worldview do not live in a utopia.

 

[Cognisant]

1st paradigm - Authoritarian

summary: Views the universe as chaotic; ethical reasoning is based on power assertion and control

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: random and chaotic big bang, every unit of matter repels every other, moving away from each other, and will eventually disintegrate into nothing; consciousness is just an epiphenomenon between mass and energy, is random, and we can only perceive with the 5 senses; truth cannot be known, only created

Mode of ethical reasoning: the world is chaos and the only order is the assertion of their will; expand power, control, and dominion; there is no context for the value of life

notes: Warlords, Ghengis Khan, brute force, no thic, no reference for right and wrong, materialist, insatiable immediate self-gratification

Philosophical correlates: Epicurius / Callicius, might makes right, Nihilism
Spiritual expression correlates: Atheism, Materialism, (intellectual authoritarian)

This was written with a strong negative bias, there's a presumption that in the absence of God morality must come from authority, dictated by a dictator, but justice doesn't require a mythological basis. I consider myself a fully actualized nihilist, I know reality is without inherent meaning but I also understand that we cannot live without meaning, thus in the absence of God the onus of arbitration falls upon us to decide what is good and evil.

Rather than surrendering ourselves to a dictator, in lieu of of a God, we have developed a justice system based on reason, principles of fairness and desired outcomes.

Also being a good person is generally it's own reward, not because the universe is inherently good or just, but rather because we live in the context of a society, surrounded by people who are self interested, and it benefits everyone to see that good people are treated well and that bad ones are not.

2nd paradigm - Reactionary

summary: Sees the cosmos as cyclical; ethical decisions arise from binary distinctions of good and evil

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: the cosmos has always been there, ordered, eternally oscillating, cyclical, binary, and deterministic; universe expands to a point of stasis, then retracts back to the original state of big bang, then starts over; we physically manifest and become conscious mechanically as the universe expands; due to this oscillation, hardwired, binary perception of reality, can sense the expansion and contraction

Mode of ethical reasoning: binary, choose a side between good and evil, competition between A and B, deep conviction that there is an ultimate “other” threatening them

notes: tribal, good vs bad, dark vs light, yin vs yang, life vs death, etc.; fascists, state corporate capitalists, state communists, nationalism, fundamentalism; gain meaning from choosing a side

Philosophical correlates: Hegel Dialectics
Spiritual expression correlates: Fundamentalism, Taoism, dialectic dualism

Profoundly stupid people.

3rd paradigm - Conservative

summary: Believes in an ordered oscillating cosmos and projects future ethical decisions based on past patterns

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: cosmos has always been there, ordered, eternally oscillating, expanding and contracting; we can influence the mechanical properties of the oscillating universe by making existential decisions with our intellect and we can alter the course of human destiny by exerting our will; we can determine with the mind historical patterns of how the world works and project alternate futures and choose one

Mode of ethical reasoning: choose a projected future and behave as if it is true through an act of will; use patterns of the past to project into the future and make choices that maintain it, prevent change, and feel secure in their interests; right and wrong is determined by choosing a path

notes: form nation-state in its basic form

Philosophical correlates: Existentialism
Spiritual expression correlates: Existentialism, historical projection, quest for meaning

This sounds like me, but how is this different from a materialist perspective?

If this is just a different interpretation of the same premise that undermines the entire point of categorizing people based on their fundamental beliefs.

4th paradigm - Moderate

summary: Agnostic about ultimate realities; relies on empirical evidence for utilitarian policies

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: agnostic towards cosmology, teleology, and ontology; epistemology: only the 5 senses, gather data, should not project with the mind or choose a path; mind is for theorizing only, and only information derived from physical data can progress knowledge

Mode of ethical reasoning: will not take a position on ultimate reality that they do not have definitive answers to; utilitarian, pragmatically choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people (virtually mathematical)

notes: agnostic to cosmological questions, scientific community, materialists, no ultimate conclusion, expanding knowledge, willing to change and amend thesis, post-modernism(ish); will not acknowledge the veracity of anything that is not physically repeatable

Philosophical correlates: Majoritarian, Utilitarian, Scientific Logical Positivism
Spiritual expression correlates: Agnosticism

Sensible, boring, not applicable to real life.
The perspective of a detached intellectual.

5th paradigm - Liberal

summary: Recognizes multiple faculties for understanding harmony, combining data and intuition in ethical reasoning

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: conscious admission that there may be another faculty of the human mind to discern the one-ness or harmony of the universe, unitive phenomenon; supplement data with intuition

Mode of ethical reasoning: supplement with intuition to choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but at the same time at least provides subsistence for the least well off; distribution of resources that the least have access to, up to a point that doesn’t affect production and control of the world.

Philosophical correlates: Plato / Socrates
Spiritual expression correlates: Unitarianism, Humanism

Positive bias, not explained well.

6th paradigm - Progressive

summary: Views the universe as interconnected; Intuition guides policies for the greatest good, emphasizing distributive justice

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: universe was always here; universe is bonded together into one radical whole; full recognition and adoption of the faculty of the human mind to discern one-ness or harmony of the universe; intuition is primary; discerning “natural law” is the referent for right and wrong

Mode of ethical reasoning: primarily use intuition to choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but at the same time provides subsistence for the least well off; full adoption of distribution of resources that the least have access to; distributive justice: recognition of human need of basic resources over contribution, a matter of justice, not charity

notes: strive for harmony with “natural law” to achieve happiness. U. S. Constitution

Philosophical correlates: Pathagoras
Spiritual expression correlates: Pantheism, radical Monism, “Natural Law”

Hippies, stoners, ignoramuses.

7th paradigm - Utopian

summary: Sees the universe as conscious, aiming for transcendence; ethical reasoning prioritizes the collective well-being

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: universe unfolded out of an eternal sea of undifferentiated consciousness; particles of the universe are bits of consciousness; consciousness permeates the entire physical world; escaton, evolving over time to transcend from the material world into a state of unconditioned being and bliss as the world expands; experience of “being” when properly freed from its material encasement, will be unified with the eternal consciousness and no longer a separate “self”; complete control of faculty to discern one-ness or harmony of the universe; observe oneness, calm, and being through meditation

Mode of ethical reasoning: using the faculty of unitive phenomenon to selflessly choose and enact policies predicated on the well-being of the whole world and everyone in it; transcend the bounds of “self”

Philosophical correlates: Stoic - Pre-Socratic
Spiritual expression correlates: Panentheism, Emminationism

Dangerously stupid.

 

[Mithrandir]

Sure, but you would have no grounds to oppose slavery, for example. Because whatever benefits the most people is the "good".

The calculus of all this can be tricky sometimes. For example, is it in the great good of the greatest many that in a situation where 1000 papercuts must be distributed among 1000 people that 1 person receive the full amount of papercuts, or that 1000 people receive 1 papercut? If hard physical labor is taxing and unpleasant, is it utilitarian to concentrate it onto the hands of a few for the benefits of the many? Perhaps 1000 papercuts dished out to one individual would have an effect on the body that would be more detrimental to the individual than could simply be reduced to the examination of the damage done by one papercut multiplied 1000 times. If this were true, then maybe there is a crucial threshold of papercuts distributed that, when crossed, exceeds the additive damage of the sum of the damage of one papercut. Should this maximum amount of tolerable papercuts be used to and divied out to as many of the 1000 individuals necessary whilst sparing the rest?

I think this group mostly just waits for technology to solve ethical issues. But yeah, these are the types of considerations in utilitarianism. Sometimes it is like attempting to quantify something that's qualitative.

Justice would be it's a right, part of "Natural Law". Charity would just be an optional act of the giver.

Some would argue charity to be a part of "natural law," thereby rendering this a false dichotomy. As per wikipedia:

"Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of natural order and human nature, from which values, thought by natural law's proponents to be intrinsic to human nature, can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society)."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law]

And as for charity:

"The question of why any creatures are altruistic at all obsessed Charles Darwin from the time he devised his theory of evolution. Since then, two complex schools of scientific thought have emerged. One argues that altruism exists because it helps ensure the survival of close kin. Various researchers have also highlighted the merits of the view that helping may maximize the survival odds of each member of a society. That would mean that behaving less selfishly isn't just a way of protecting close family members; it might also be a way for individuals to improve their own prospects by contributing to the well-being of a strong collective."


https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/news/hard-wired-for-giving/

It's not a false dichotomy, they are just different definitions. A right is something that is fulfilled out of duty, and can thus be enforced. Charity is something that is optionally fulfilled or volunteered, regardless of motives.

Life is no longer about self-interest. You only perceive yourself as part of the whole with no distinction of interests.

And does the whole have its own interests?

Harmony and basic needs I would think. I would look at Buddhist or Hindu monks as an extreme example.

But at transcendence, "self" has no meaning, only the harmonic whole. So utopian would be devastating to "selves" by definition.

So if I were to transcend, would I cease to have conscious experience, or would it be more like a situation where I would be disregarding my own desires?

I believe the idea of transcendence is to enter a state of consciousness or flow in which the physical body fades away and you experience "being" in and of itself, and the connectedness of nature.

The closest I could correlate is as a musician, you enter a state of flow, where the physical act eventually fades away to the subconscious and becomes subservient to active expression. And you gain a general awareness of how your expression interacts with the expression of the other musicians, and how they all interlock to create the whole.

I imagine it is achieved the same way, through practice, experience, and intention.

 

[Mithrandir]

1st paradigm - Authoritarian

summary: Views the universe as chaotic; ethical reasoning is based on power assertion and control

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: random and chaotic big bang, every unit of matter repels every other, moving away from each other, and will eventually disintegrate into nothing; consciousness is just an epiphenomenon between mass and energy, is random, and we can only perceive with the 5 senses; truth cannot be known, only created

Mode of ethical reasoning: the world is chaos and the only order is the assertion of their will; expand power, control, and dominion; there is no context for the value of life

notes: Warlords, Ghengis Khan, brute force, no thic, no reference for right and wrong, materialist, insatiable immediate self-gratification

Philosophical correlates: Epicurius / Callicius, might makes right, Nihilism
Spiritual expression correlates: Atheism, Materialism, (intellectual authoritarian)

This was written with a strong negative bias, there's a presumption that in the absence of God morality must come from authority, dictated by a dictator, but justice doesn't require a mythological basis. I consider myself a fully actualized nihilist, I know reality is without inherent meaning but I also understand that we cannot live without meaning, thus in the absence of God the onus of arbitration falls upon us to decide what is good and evil.

Rather than surrendering ourselves to a dictator, in lieu of of a God, we have developed a justice system based on reason, principles of fairness and desired outcomes.

Also being a good person is generally it's own reward, not because the universe is inherently good or just, but rather because we live in the context of a society, surrounded by people who are self interested, and it benefits everyone to see that good people are treated well and that bad ones are not.

There is no presumption of morality at all. Simply there is no right or wrong, only chaos and the order imposed by one's will. The description is informational, based on the extensive research of Dr. Parsons and Dr. Potter through thousands of interviews in which they recognized and catalogued patterns of particular cohesive and consistent worldviews.

If you feel the need to decide good, evil, and fairness, you would either not be a part of the 1st paradigm worldview, or your particular worldview would not be cohesive and/or consistent and exhibit traits from multiple.

3rd paradigm - Conservative

summary: Believes in an ordered oscillating cosmos and projects future ethical decisions based on past patterns

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: cosmos has always been there, ordered, eternally oscillating, expanding and contracting; we can influence the mechanical properties of the oscillating universe by making existential decisions with our intellect and we can alter the course of human destiny by exerting our will; we can determine with the mind historical patterns of how the world works and project alternate futures and choose one

Mode of ethical reasoning: choose a projected future and behave as if it is true through an act of will; use patterns of the past to project into the future and make choices that maintain it, prevent change, and feel secure in their interests; right and wrong is determined by choosing a path

notes: form nation-state in its basic form

Philosophical correlates: Existentialism
Spiritual expression correlates: Existentialism, historical projection, quest for meaning

This sounds like me, but how is this different from a materialist perspective?

If this is just a different interpretation of the same premise that undermines the entire point of categorizing people based on their fundamental beliefs.

Existentialism, the philosophy that correlates with this worldview, emphasizes above all the freedom of will - the possibility of choice is the central fact of human nature. There need be no rationale for the criteria of choices given or any causal explanation. Since, to them, reality cannot be comprehended within a conceptual system, they are determined to find meaning by examining past experiences, choosing a path, and projecting that into the future, assigning "good" to its adherence and mastery. This "good" need not be mere self-interest, but can be interest of the group, etc.

Keep in mind most of these processes are subconscious, so it may be hard for them to articulate why they have this compulsion.

Nietzsche would be a good example of the 3rd paradigm worldview who is an atheist. He emphasized that power came from the will, and that it was best manifested in self-control, art, and philosophy, not in the subjugation of others. He admired Julius Caesar's personality and self-mastery, and had reservations of Napoleon, calling him the "synthesis of the inhuman and superhuman." The epitome of power to him was the perfectly self-possessed man who has no fear of other men, of himself, or of death. Essentially, his ultimate good was the mastery of this projected ethic that he had chosen.

5th paradigm - Liberal

summary: Recognizes multiple faculties for understanding harmony, combining data and intuition in ethical reasoning

Answers to the questions of ultimate reality: conscious admission that there may be another faculty of the human mind to discern the one-ness or harmony of the universe, unitive phenomenon; supplement data with intuition

Mode of ethical reasoning: supplement with intuition to choose policies that generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but at the same time at least provides subsistence for the least well off; distribution of resources that the least have access to, up to a point that doesn’t affect production and control of the world.

Philosophical correlates: Plato / Socrates
Spiritual expression correlates: Unitarianism, Humanism

Positive bias, not explained well.

I agree that it is not well explained. This was the worldview he spent the least amount of time on due to time restraints (in both lectures). It was the final one he would talk about and would lose time from fielding questions etc. I've considered trying to contact him for more information and clarification.

 

[fractalwalrus]

I think this group mostly just waits for technology to solve ethical issues.

One may find it difficult to derive a tech-based solution,
Which does not in one way or another involve a rolled-up Constitution,
Whose parchment is pitted in the pernicious predicament,
Of trying to persuade the person to play particularly pleasantly with the populace.
Silicon cannot synthetically sew separate synapses to sync,
When the silly system that built them are predicated on pushing to the brink,
The extent of cruelty carried out by callous cadres of criminals,
And their henchmen who build their terminals.

A right is something that is fulfilled out of duty, and can thus be enforced. Charity is something that is optionally fulfilled or volunteered, regardless of motives.

If one holds the majority of the resources in a given locale, then the acquisition of those resources when the other decides to share would fall in this category.

Harmony and basic needs I would think.

At what point of the loss of individual components does the "whole" cease to retain its essential properties that makes it so? When does the whole say, "you know what, I may need to look after this piece of me or I will not be me anymore?"

I believe the idea of transcendence is to enter a state of consciousness or flow in which the physical body fades away and you experience "being" in and of itself, and the connectedness of nature.

I would have no clue what this experience is like, and I have yet to devise a way of determining if such a thing is possible.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Depends on if you consider family as an extension of self. If so, than 1st paradigm. If not, then tribal, us vs. them, binary.

not binary

cooperation with neighbors is obviously beneficial

and recognizing each group is self-protecting

means there is no "one-true-moral-codex"

 

[Mithrandir]

Harmony and basic needs I would think.

At what point of the loss of individual components does the "whole" cease to retain its essential properties that makes it so? When does the whole say, "you know what, I may need to look after this piece of me or I will not be me anymore?"

I think you may be over-complicating this. The loss of self is ego-related, basically the complete opposite of the 1st paradigm, which is only the self. In either worldview, you still have logistical needs that involve other people. That is when ethical reasoning comes into play, and those policies proposed will be grounded in that particular worldview. Again, if you want to dive deeper, look into Buddhist and Hindu monks.

I believe the idea of transcendence is to enter a state of consciousness or flow in which the physical body fades away and you experience "being" in and of itself, and the connectedness of nature.

I would have no clue what this experience is like, and I have yet to devise a way of determining if such a thing is possible.

Either join a Buddhist monastery to be trained or maybe try dmt and listen to what the shapes tell you. Or you could look up meditation techniques and try those. It's you and the world.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Sheehan also noted that the 7 worldviews correlate with the 7 Chakras that have been observed and practiced for millenia in the eastern part of the world. These Chakra are locations in the body that have been observed to have electromatic signatures that may influence how we interperet our experience of reality.

 

[Haim]

The approach is flawed.
First you need to think about the result of the specific choice.
Second you need to think about it as a system, what is the impact
of the choice if repeated in future events.
Third is if we want to live in a world in which such a choice is made.

 

[fractalwalrus]

The loss of self is ego-related, basically the complete opposite of the 1st paradigm, which is only the self.

Fulfilling the interests of the self is not as simple as it appears on the surface. It would seem that we each have different "selves" to whom we are inclined to appease. If you anger too many others or, more specifically, the wrong others, then you risk losing the self to the whims of the anger of those others. Sometimes, in order to placate the self, we must placate the others. Sometimes one does not need to do this. Either way, the other would persist (assuming solipsism is false) in spite of how we view them.

Either join a Buddhist monastery to be trained or maybe try dmt and listen to what the shapes tell you.

Sure, I could take a substance or induce a process that dampens the firing of certain neural pathways while amplifying others. It would be a trip, but it would still be a trip I would be experiencing, even if I can't feel my feet. I doubt this would make me come to a conclusion that I have no self, considering it would require a self to do such things.

 

[Mithrandir]

Sheehan also noted that the 7 worldviews correlate with the 7 Chakras that have been observed and practiced for millenia in the eastern part of the world. These Chakra are locations in the body that have been observed to have electromatic signatures that may influence how we interperet our experience of reality.

This is interesting and the way it was presented seems to correlate to some degree if you were to condense like the first 3 states into the 1st paradigm worldview, for example.

The approach is flawed.
First you need to think about the result of the specific choice.
Second you need to think about it as a system, what is the impact
of the choice if repeated in future events.
Third is if we want to live in a world in which such a choice is made.

This sounds like the ethical reasoning of someone in the 4th paradigm worldview (moderate). If you think this model is an "approach", like if they just created these categories and then asked people to pick one, then you may have the wrong impression. These are categories derived from thousands of interviews about their fundamental assumptions of reality and refined over decades across multiple tenures at Harvard. I'm not sure it's so easily dismissed.

Either join a Buddhist monastery to be trained or maybe try dmt and listen to what the shapes tell you.

Sure, I could take a substance or induce a process that dampens the firing of certain neural pathways while amplifying others. It would be a trip, but it would still be a trip I would be experiencing, even if I can't feel my feet. I doubt this would make me come to a conclusion that I have no self, considering it would require a self to do such things.

I think it is very common for people who partake in dmt to have life-altering perception shifts about the role of consciousness in reality, long after they are sober. It's not about the trip itself, but the potential of consciousness and the feeling of interconnected-ness, I believe. I have not tried, so wouldn't be able to tell you first hand, nor do I think a reductionist approach would be enough to explain away the phenomenon.

As far as Monks, check out the explanation from this Tibetan Buddhist monk about what he calls "open awareness" meditation:

...followed by this group of Tibetan monks who control their body heat with just meditation while being scientifically monitored:

Another interesting area is the the role of consciousness in psi phenomenon. Here's a presentation by Dr. Jessica Utts, who literally wrote the book on statistics, about how statistically significant the findings were in her research when asked to assess the remote viewing program the U. S. government ran through the 70's, 80's, and 90's. She took a year off to vet the program and its results and this is her presentation that we should take it seriously, account for it, and design around it in future scientific and medical blind testing.

I think this is relevant considering the premise of this model is that one's worldview directly correlates to one's ability to "perceive and experience the unitive phenomenon that binds the universe in a unified harmonic whole."

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I doubt this would make me come to a conclusion that I have no self, considering it would require a self to do such things.

perhaps you could be a note in a cosmic symphony

 

[fractalwalrus]

I doubt this would make me come to a conclusion that I have no self, considering it would require a self to do such things.

perhaps you could be a note in a cosmic symphony

Better yet, a note in cosmic symphonic metal.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"perceive and experience the unitive phenomenon that binds the universe in a unified harmonic whole."