User:Phlsph7/Value theory - Fields
In various fields
[edit]Ethics
[edit]Ethics and value theory are overlapping fields of inquiry. Ethics studies moral phenomena, focusing on how people should act or which behaviors are morally right.[1] Value theory investigates the nature, sources, and types of values in general.[2] Some philosophers understand value theory as a subdiscipline of ethics. This is based on the idea that what people should do is affected by value considerations but not necessarily limited to them.[3] Another view sees ethics as a subdiscipline of value theory. This outlook follows the idea that ethics is concerned with moral values affecting what people can control, whereas value theory examines a broader horizon of values, including those beyond anyone's control.[4] Some perspectives contrast ethics and value theory, asserting that the normative concepts examined by ethics are distinct from the evaluative concepts examined by value theory.[5] Axiological ethics is a subfield of ethics examining the nature and role of values from a moral perspective, with particular interest in determining which ends are worth pursuing.[6]
The ethical theory of consequentialism combines the perspectives of ethics and value theory, asserting that the rightness of an action depends on the value of its consequences. Consequentialists compare possible courses of action, saying that people should follow the one leading to the best overall consequences.[7] The overall consequences of an action are the totality of its effects, or how it impacts the world by starting a causal chain of events that would not have occurred otherwise.[8] Distinct versions of consequentialism rely on different theories of the sources of value. Classical utilitarianism, a prominent form of consequentialism, says that moral actions produce the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. It combines a consequentialist outlook on right action with a hedonist outlook on pleasure as the only source of intrinsic value.[9]
Economics
[edit]Economics is a social science studying how goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed, both from the perspective of individual agents and societal systems.[10] Economists view evaluations as a driving force underlying economic activity. They use the notion of economic value and related evaluative concepts to understand decision-making processes, resource allocation, and the impact of policies. The economic value or benefit of a commodity is the advantage it provides to an economic agent, often measured in terms of the money people are willing to pay for it.[11]
Economic theories of value are frameworks to explain how economic value arises and which factors influence it. Prominent frameworks include the classical labor theory of value and the neo-classical marginal theory of value.[12] The labor theory, initially developed by the economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, distinguishes between use value—the utility or satisfaction a commodity provides—and exchange value—the proportion at which one commodity can be exchanged with another.[13] It focuses on exchange value, which it says is determined by the amount of labor required to produce the commodity. In its simplest form, it directly correlates exchange value to labor time. For example, if the time needed to hunt a deer is twice the time needed to hunt a beaver then one deer is worth two beavers.[14] The philosopher Karl Marx extended the labor theory of value in various ways. He introduced the concept of surplus value, which goes beyond the time and resources invested to explain how capitalists can profit from the labor of their employees.[15]
The marginal theory of value focuses on consumption rather than production. It says that the utility a commodity is the source of its value. Specifically, it is interested in marginal utility, the additional satisfaction gained from consuming one more unit of the commodity. Marginal utility often diminishes if many units have already been consumed, leading to a decrease in the exchange value of commodities that are abundantly available.[16] Both the labor theory and the marginal theory were later challenged by the Sraffian theory of value.[17]
Sociology
[edit]Sociology studies social behavior, relationships, institutions, and society at large.[18] In their analyses and explanations of these phenomena, some sociologists use the concept of values to understand issues like social cohesion and conflict, the norms and practices people follow, and collective action. They usually understand values as subjective attitudes possessed by individuals and shared in social groups. According to this view, values are beliefs or priorities about goals worth pursuing that guide people to act in certain ways. This subjective conception of values as aspects of individuals and social groups contrasts with the objective conceptions of values more prominent in economics, which understands values as aspects of commodities.[19]
Shared values can help unite people in the pursuit of a common cause, fostering social cohesion. Value differences, by contrast, may divide people into antagonistic groups that promote conflicting projects. Some sociologists employ value research to predict how people will behave. Given the observation that someone values the environment, they may conclude that this person is more likely to recycle or support pro-environmental legislation.[20] One approach to this type of research uses value scales, such as the Rokeach Value Survey and the Schwartz Scale of Values, to measure the value outlook of individuals and groups.[21]
Anthropology
[edit]Anthropology also studies human behavior and societies but does not limit itself to contemporary social structures, extending its focus to humanity both past and present.[22] Similar to sociologists, many anthropologists understand values as social representations of goals worth pursuing. For them, values are embedded in mental structures associated with culture and ideology about what is desirable. A slightly different approach in anthropology focuses on the practical side of values, holding that values are constantly created through human activity.[23]
Anthropological value theorists use values to compare cultures.[24] They can be employed to examine similarities as universal concerns present in every society. For example, anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn and sociologist Fred Strodtbeck proposed a set of value orientations found in every culture.[25] Values can also be used to analyze differences between cultures and value changes within a culture. Anthropologist Louis Dumont followed this idea, suggesting that the cultural meaning systems in distinct societies differ in their value priorities. He argued that values are ordered hierarchically around a set of paramount values that trump all other values.[26]
The contrast between individualism and collectivism is an influential topic in cross-cultural value research. Individualism promotes values associated with the autonomy of individuals, such as self-directedness, independence, and personal goals. Collectivism gives priority to group-related values, like cooperation, conformity, and foregoing personal advantages for the sake of collective benefits. As a rough simplification, it is often suggested that individualism is more prominent in Western cultures, whereas collectivism is more commonly observed in Eastern cultures.[27]
Psychology
[edit]As the study of mental phenomena and behavior, psychology contrasts with sociology and anthropology by focusing more on the perspective of individuals than the broader social and cultural contexts.[28] Psychologists tend to understand values as abstract motivational goals or general principles about what matters.[29] From this perspective, values differ from specific plans and intentions since they are stable evaluative tendencies not bound to concrete situations.[30]
Various psychological theories of values establish a close link between an individual's evaluative outlook and their personality.[31] An early theory, formulated by psychologists Philip E. Vernon and Gordon Allport, understands personality as a collection of aspects unified by a coherent value system. It distinguishes between six personality types corresponding to the value spheres of theory, economy, aesthetics, society, politics, and religion. For example, people with theoretical personalities place special importance on the value of knowledge and discovery of truth.[32] Influenced by Vernon and Allport, psychologist Milton Rokeach conceptualized values as enduring beliefs about what goals and conduct are preferable. He divided values into the categories of instrumental and terminal values. He thought that a central aspect of personality lies in how people prioritize the values within each category.[33] Psychologist Shalom Schwartz refined this approach by linking values to emotion and motivation. He explored how value rankings affect decisions in which the values of different options conflict.[34]
References
[edit]Notes
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^
- Norman 2005, p. 622
- Nagel 2006, Lead section
- Crisp 2011, § 1. Ethics and Metaethics
- ^
- Smith & Thomas 1998, Lead section
- Hirose & Olson 2015, pp. 1–2
- Schroeder 2021, Lead section
- ^
- Schroeder 2021, Lead section
- Orsi 2015, p. 6–7
- Hurka 2006, p. 357
- ^
- Schroeder 2021, Lead section
- Orsi 2015, p. 6–7
- Bahm 1993, p. 4
- Cowan 2020, pp. 4
- Hurka 2006, pp. 357–358
- ^
- Orsi 2015, p. 8–9
- Schroeder 2021, § 3. Relation to the Deontic
- Hurka 2006, pp. 357–358
- ^
- Findlay 1970, pp. 1–2, 4
- Kupperman 2005, pp. 73–74
- ^
- Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, Lead section
- Crisp 2005, pp. 200–201
- Alexander & Moore 2021, § 1. Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism
- ^ Dorsey 2020, pp. 97–98
- ^
- Sinnott-Armstrong 2023, § 1. Classic Utilitarianism
- Chenneville 2017, p. 5
- Hearn 1971, p. 2
- ^
- ^
- Pirgmaier 2021, pp. 1
- Young & Loomis 2014, p. 289
- Turner et al. 2004, p. 50
- ^
- Pirgmaier 2021, pp. 1, 8–9
- Ayres 2023, p. 104
- ^
- ^
- Pirgmaier 2021, pp. 2–3
- Ayres 2023, p. 104
- ^
- Moseley 2023, p. 48
- Pirgmaier 2021, pp. 7–8
- ^
- ^ Ayres 2023, p. 104
- ^
- Bhushan & Sachdeva 2012, p. 4
- Sharma 1996, p. 10
- ^
- Karp 2000, Lead section
- Steinert 2023, pp. 33–34, 37, 39–40
- Tormos 2019, p. 11
- ^
- Karp 2000, Lead section, § Social Values
- Steinert 2023, pp. 39–40, 47
- ^
- Karp 2000, Lead section, § The Rokeach Tradition, § The Schwartz Scale of Values
- Tormos 2019, pp. 13–15
- ^
- Sutton 2021, p. 5
- Fluehr-Lobban 2013, p. 158
- ^
- Robbins 2023, § Foundations of Value Theory, § A Third Approach to Value
- Steinert 2023, pp. 53–54, 56, 58
- ^
- Steinert 2023, pp. 3, 55
- Robbins 2023, § Foundations of Value Theory
- Sykes 2016, § Introduction
- ^
- Steinert 2023, p. 54
- Robbins 2023, § Foundations of Value Theory
- ^
- Robbins 2023, § Foundations of Value Theory
- Sykes 2016, § Introduction, § General Overviews
- Steinert 2023, pp. 3, 61–62
- ^
- Karp 2000, § Individualism and Collectivism
- Fatehi, Priestley & Taasoobshirazi 2020, pp. 7–9
- Kim 2002, p. 22
- Serna & Martínez 2022, p. 423
- ^
- Steinert 2023, p. 4
- Woodworth & Marquis 2014, p. 5
- ^
- Steinert 2023, pp. 7–8
- Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 106–107
- ^ Steinert 2023, pp. 14, 19–20
- ^
- Steinert 2023, pp. 4, 11–12
- Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 106
- ^
- Steinert 2023, pp. 11–12
- Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 106
- ^
- Steinert 2023, pp. 12–13
- Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 106–107
- ^
- Steinert 2023, pp. 13–15
- Schwartz & Cieciuch 2016, pp. 107–108
Sources
[edit]- Woodworth, Robert; Marquis, Donald (2014). Psychology: A Study of Mental Life. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-317-66144-3.
- Schwartz, S. H.; Cieciuch, J. (2016). "Values". In Leong, F. T. L.; Bartram, D.; Cheung, F. M.; Geisinger, K. F.; Iliescu, D. (eds.). The ITC International Handbook of Testing and Assessment. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-935694-2.
- Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn (2013). Ethics and Anthropology: Ideas and Practice. AltaMira Press. ISBN 978-0-7591-2188-1.
- Sutton, Mark Q. (2021). Archaeology: The Science of the Human Past. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-35113-2.
- Serna, Cristina; Martínez, Isabel (2022). "Parenting and Adolescent Technological Addictions". In Selin, Helaine (ed.). Parenting Across Cultures: Childrearing, Motherhood and Fatherhood in Non-Western Cultures. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-15359-4.
- Kim, Min-Sun (2002). Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Sage. ISBN 978-0-7619-2351-0.
- Fatehi, Kamal; Priestley, Jennifer L; Taasoobshirazi, Gita (2020). "The Expanded View of Individualism and Collectivism: One, Two, or Four Dimensions?". International Journal of Cross Cultural Management. 20 (1). doi:10.1177/1470595820913077.
- Sykes, Karen (2016). "Value". Oxford Bibliographies. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0138. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
- Robbins, Joel (2023). "Values". The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
- Tormos, Raül (2019). The Rhythm of Modernization: How Values Change over Time. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41191-3.
- Sharma, Rajendra Kumar (1996). Fundamentals of Sociology. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. ISBN 978-81-7156-645-7.
- Bhushan, Vidya; Sachdeva, D. R. (2012). Fundamentals of Sociology. Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-81-317-9967-3.
- Karp, David R. (2000). "Values Theory and Research". In Borgatta, Edgar F.; Montgomery, Rhonda J. V. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Sociology (2 ed.). Macmillan Reference. ISBN 9780028648538.
- Black, John; Hashimzade, Nigar; Myles, Gareth (2009). "Marginal Utility". A Dictionary of Economics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923704-3.
- Moseley, Fred (2023). Marx’s Theory of Value in Chapter 1 of Capital: A Critique of Heinrich’s Value-Form Interpretation. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-031-13210-0.
- Ayres, Robert U. (2023). The History and Future of Economics. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-26208-1.
- Turner, R. Kerry; Georgiou, Stavros; Clark, Rebecca; Brouwer, Roy; Burke, Jacob (2004). Economic Valuation of Water Resources in Agriculture: From the Sectoral to a Functional Perspective of Natural Resource Management. Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 978-92-5-105190-0.
- Young, Robert A.; Loomis, John B. (2014). Determining the Economic Value of Water: Concepts and Methods. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-04052-9.
- Mukherjee, Sampat; Mukherjee, Mallinath; Ghose, Amitava (2013). Microeconomics. Prentice-Hall of India. ISBN 978-81-203-2318-6.
- Welch, Patrick J.; Welch, Gerry F. (2009). Economics: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-45009-3.
- Pape, John (2000). Economics: An Introduction for South African Learners. Juta and Company Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7021-5206-1.
- Rogers, Alisdair; Castree, Noel; Kitchin, Rob (2013). "Use Value". A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-959986-8.
- Fraser, Ian (2009). "Exchange Value". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0.
- Pirgmaier, Elke (2021). "The value of value theory for ecological economics". Ecological Economics. 179. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106790.
- Klimczak, Bożena (2017). "Axiological entanglement of economics". Annales. Ethics in Economic Life. 20 (5). doi:10.18778/1899-2226.20.5.03.
- Steinert, Steffen (2023). Interdisciplinary Value Theory. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-10733-7.
- Adler, Matthew D. (2015). "Value and Cost-Benefit Analysis". In Hirose, Iwao; Olson, Jonas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022143-0.
- Hearn, Thomas K. (1971). "Introduction". Studies in Utilitarianism. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
- Chenneville, Tiffany (2017). "Ethics and Social Justice: A Review of Theoretical Frameworks and Pedagogical Considerations". In Liston, Delores D.; Rahimi, Regina (eds.). Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-03132-7.
- Kupperman, Joel J. (2005). "Axiological Ethics". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7.
- Findlay, John Niemeyer (1970). Axiological Ethics. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-00269-8.