Cultivating Wisdom

Wisdom is pushing the limits of truth.

What are the things that lead to reduced suffering?

How do we desire good?

When does discernment serve this good and not evil?

What ultimate goal could a radical constructionist hold?

The God-fearing pays the debt of homage. 

Wisdom is the guiding grace of God to continue doing all the good in creation.

It’s the sacred mystery of divine revelation.

That mystery of time has come in the form of many forms and ways of revelation, which have come with experiences across time and passed down caringly with our people and tribe. 

In other words, we want our descendants and loved ones to improve.

Perspectives & Methods 

Model: Default (GPT-3.5)

“Baltes’ Berlin Wisdom Paradigm” is a psychological framework proposed by Baltes and Smith (1990) that outlines wisdom’s cognitive, reflective, and affective components. Although mathematical analysis is not involved in the paradigm, researchers have used various quantitative methods to measure and assess wisdom in empirical studies.

Quantifying moral and ethical reasoning can be challenging due to morality’s subjective and context-dependent nature. However, researchers have developed various approaches to assess moral and ethical reasoning. Here are some standard methods and approaches used to quantify moral and ethical reasoning:

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development: Lawrence Kohlberg proposed a stage theory of moral development that describes different levels and stages of moral reasoning. The theory suggests that individuals progress through a sequence of steps, each characterized by increasingly complex moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview (MJI) is a commonly used tool to assess moral reasoning based on participants’ responses to moral dilemmas. The interviews are scored according to the stage of moral development reached by the individual.

Defining Moral Dilemmas: Researchers often present participants with moral dilemmas that require them to make difficult ethical decisions. The responses and justifications provided by participants can be analyzed quantitatively by assigning scores or categories based on the quality of their moral reasoning. Various coding schemes and criteria have been developed to evaluate the presence of moral considerations, reasoning complexity, and consistency in ethical decision-making.

Moral Foundations Theory: This theory, proposed by Jonathan Haidt, suggests that moral judgments are based on a set of core moral foundations or principles. The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) is a self-report measure that assesses individuals’ endorsement of different moral foundations, such as fairness, harm, loyalty, authority, and purity. Researchers can gain insights into their moral reasoning preferences by quantifying individuals’ endorsement and weighting of these foundations.

Ethical Decision-Making Models: Ethical decision-making models provide a framework to evaluate individuals’ ethical reasoning processes. For example, the Dual-Process Model of Ethical Decision-Making differentiates between intuitive/emotional and deliberative/rational processes involved in ethical decision-making. Researchers can assess individuals’ ethical decision-making styles by using measures that capture their reliance on different decision-making processes and the extent to which they consider ethical principles.

Behavioral Observations: Besides self-report measures and hypothetical scenarios, researchers may also use behavioral observations to quantify moral and ethical reasoning. This approach involves examining individuals’ behaviors in moral or ethical situations and coding their actions based on predetermined criteria or ethical guidelines.

It’s important to note that quantifying moral and ethical reasoning is not a definitive process, and different approaches may emphasize different aspects of moral reasoning.

Researchers often combine multiple methods and measures better to understand individuals’ moral and ethical decision-making processes. Moreover, cultural, contextual, and individual differences must be considered when interpreting and generalizing findings related to moral and ethical reasoning.