Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What are Values?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality vs Skepticism
Imaginary Friend
I just began to read Ayn Rand's, "The Virtue of Selfishness", which posits a very interesting question and I thought it would provide for interesting discussion here.


Excerpt:
"The question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all -- and why?

Is the concept of value, of "good or evil" an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality-- or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man's existence? (*I use the word "metaphysical" to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom , decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles-- or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims: of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelations-- or is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxury or an objective necessity?"

Thoughts? original.gif


Bella-Angelique
Social capital

Social capital is a concept with a variety of inter-related definitions, based on the value of social networks.

While various aspects of the concept have been approached by all social science fields, some trace the modern usage of the term to sociologist Jane Jacobs in the 1960s. However, she did not explicitly define a term social capital but used it in an article with a reference to the value of networks. The first cohesive exposition of the term was by Pierre Bourdieu in 1972 (though clear formulation in his work can be traced to 1984), and subsequently picked up initially by James Coleman and then others. For a time in the late 1990s, the concept was highly fashionable, with the World Bank devoting a research programme to it, and the concept achieving public awareness through Robert Putnam's 2000 book, Bowling Alone.

Roots

The term social capital is new but the concept that underlies it is not. Philosophers who emphasized the relation between pluralistic associational life and democracy implicitly used it as early as the 19th century. These theorists include James Madison (The Federalist), Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America), and, indeed, many authors in the dominant, pluralist tradition in American political science.

Some examples of social capital include PTA's, girl/boy scouts, school boards, bowling leagues, internet networks, and even extreme groups like the KKK or white supremacy groups (although these groups create "bad" social capital that can have negative effects).

These groups can help build and break societies due to their bridging/bonding behavior. By increasing the amount of human interaction, people are more likely to help one another and later become more politically involved.

Recently, there has been much discussion of email and online communities and whether they help build social capital. Some argue that they may bridge people together but do not bond them. Another interesting debate among political scientists has regarded whether email helps produce social capital within the work place or diminish it.
[edit]

Definitions

In The Forms of Capital (1986) Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms of capital: economic capital, cultural capital and social capital. He defines social capital as "the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition."

Social capital "refers to the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other," according to Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone and the concept's leading exponent (though not its originator). According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy. Putnam notes that social capital is on the decline in the United States. This is seen in lower levels of trust in government and lower levels of civic participation. Putnam notes that television and urban sprawl have had a significant role in making America far less connected.

Nan Lin's concept of social capital has a more individualistic approach: "Investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace". It may subsume the concepts of some others such as Bourdieu, Coleman, Flap, Putnam and Eriksson as noted in Lin's book Social Capital (2001; Cambridge University Press).

Francis Fukuyama described it thus, "Social capital can be defined simply as the existence of a certain set of informal values or norms shared among members of a group that permit cooperation among them."

According to social capitalist Caira Nakasone, the ambiguity over the definition of Social Capital does not lie within the definition of “social” but in the doubt of “capital”. It is in the causal and more over “effective” nature of social networks which inhibits agreement over a concrete, measurable form of the theory.

Looking at the definition of this term in the origin of both words helps explain its underlying meaning. Social meaning: relating to human society and how it is organized and capital defined as: economics material wealth in the form of money or property, identifies the meaning as societal wealth .

Studies show that war generates social capital and that social capital can be divided along generational lines. This assertion can be confirmed by the World War II generation's high levels of social capital. This generation has sustained their increased levels of civic engagement and remains the faction most likely to participate in activities such as voting and volunteerism.

Nahpiet and Ghoshal in their exploration of the role of social capital in the creation of intellectual capital, suggest that social capital should be considered in terms of three clusters: structural, relational and cognitive. Carlos García Timón describes that the structural dimensions of social capital relate to an individual ability to make weak and strong ties to others within a system. According to the work of Boisot (1995) and Boland and Tensaki (1995), meaningful communication requires at least some sharing context between the parties to such exchange.

One problem with the term social capital is that it is not often clear how to distinguish it conceptually from the idea of civil society and trust. Often these terms are used interchangably, though they do not necessarily mean the same thing. There is continued debate among political scientists over the true meaning and definition of these words. Many believe that they can be interchanged, while others believe that the consequences of them cause radically different effects on society.


Form of capital

The term "capital" is used by analogy with other forms of economic capital, as social capital is argued to have similar (although less measurable) benefits. The analogy with capital is however misleading to the extent that, unlike traditional forms of capital, social capital is not depleted by use, but in fact depleted by non-use ("use it or lose it"). In this respect it is similar to the now well-established economic concept of human capital.
[edit]

Bonding and bridging

In his pioneering study, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster 2000), Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam wrote: "Henry Ward Beecher's advice a century ago to "multiply picnics" is not entirely ridiculous today. We should do this, ironically, not because it will be good for America — though it will be — but because it will be good for us." Putnam is not suggesting here that we must expand an already stable level of networking and civil interaction. He has found an overall decline in social capital in America over the past fifty years, a trend that may have significant implications for American society.

Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept: bonding social capital and bridging social capital. The former refers to the value assigned to social networks between homogeneous groups of people and the latter to that of social networks between socially heterogeneous groups. Typical examples are that criminal gangs create bonding social capital, while choirs and bowling clubs (hence the title, as Putnam lamented their decline) create bridging social capital. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host of other benefits for societies, governments, individuals, and communities; Putnam likes to note that joining an organization cuts in half an individual's chance of dying within the next year.

The distinction is useful in highlighting how social capital may not always be beneficial for society as a whole (though it is always an asset for those individuals and groups involved). Horizontal networks of individual citizens and groups that enhance community productivity and cohesion are said to be positive social capital assets whereas self-serving exclusive gangs and hierarchical patronage systems that operate at cross purposes to societal interests can be thought of as negative social capital burdens on society.

The concept of social capital in a Chinese social context has been closely linked with the concept of guanxi. link
--------------------------

Ayn Rand


Ayn Rand (IPA: /ajn ɹænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, was best known for developing the philosophy of Objectivism and for writing the novels We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.

Her philosophy and her fiction both emphasize, above all, the concepts of individualism, rational egoism ("rational self-interest"), and capitalism, which she believed should be implemented fully via laissez-faire capitalism.

------------------------

Laissez-faire capitolism the baisis for the current disasters of modern globalsim is now fast becoming common knowledge to have been a gigantic failure.
Tengu
This is an interesting question. I will really have to think on it a bit but off the top of my head here is what I think....

Ethics and values are really what seperates man from animal. Animals just act on impulse and instinct while men stop and think about what they want to do before doing it to consider who it will affect. Are ethics and values necessary? I don't really think so. We don't NEED them to live in a basic way. We might however need them to keep us from killing each other or constantly being in a state of chaos. To clarify what I mean....a person that is isolated from men could survive without ever knowing ethics or values. But to exist as a society I do think they are needed to keep us from being in a constant state of war.

But on the other hand at times it is these values and ethics that cause war. What one culture deems sacred another might make cartoons about and print in their local paper as a joke......
hyperactive
values are a human abstraction that allows for a creation of continuity or justification in behaviour. Animals have the same level of values as humans, it just is they do not demonstrate an abstraction of the idea. Humans behave in relatively predictable manners, just like their human bretheren.

The quest to abstract behaviour to a code is human "mental masterbation". In fact, codes accepted are those that reflect the animal in the first place and thus need not be explicitly laid out.
Bella-Angelique
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Apr 11 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]1143059[/snapback]

In fact, codes accepted are those that reflect the animal in the first place and thus need not be explicitly laid out.


penal code

A penal code can be defined as that portion of a state's laws that deal with defining the elements of particular crimes and specifying the punishment for each crime. Other parts of the laws of a given state can also define crimes and punishments, such as a traffic code or a building safety code, or laws addressing environmental resources by regulating hunting, fishing, or forestry.

In many states, the body of criminal law is published in one or more printed books for convenient reference by lawyers, other professionals of the criminal justice system, and, in principle, ordinary citizens.link
Imaginary Friend
QUOTE(Bella-Angelique @ Apr 11 2006, 04:40 PM) [snapback]1143034[/snapback]

Laissez-faire capitolism the baisis for the current disasters of modern globalsim is now fast becoming common knowledge to have been a gigantic failure.





That statement is a misnomer of the facts, actually.


Laissez-faire today


Most modern industrialized nations today are not typically representative of Laissez-faire principles, as they usually involve significant amounts of government intervention in the economy. (Cont'd)
Laissez Faire Capitalism
"Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the separation of economy and state.

There are two ways that a government typically is tempted to interfere with the economy. The first is through the initiation of force, and the second is through socialized industries. Neither of these activities are aligned with the proper role of government, and are both unacceptable.

"Laissez Faire Capitalism" is actually redundant, due to the nature of Capitalism. Therefore, simply "Capitalism" is sufficient to get the point across although historically it has been misrepresented as compatible with government economic interference. (Source)

QUOTE
"The only action which a government can take to protect free competition is : Laissez-faire! which, in translation, means: Hands off" Ayn Rand


Excerpt: "Ayn Rand maintained the necessity of a government that kept its “hands off” the private lives of its citizens, while at the same time protecting their individual rights. This means ensuring that the same inalienable rights are granted to all citizens equally. Illegitimate economic gains such as fraud are violations of the individual rights of others and must be dealt with in a court of law. The government is the only entity that can be justified in the use of physical force, as may be the outcome of judicial proceedings. (Ayn Rand deals with this in detail in her book The Virtue of Selfishness in the chapter “The Nature of Government”. " (Source: The Objectivist Center)
artymoon
Simply put, humans are nuanced.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.