if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    research suggests a core set of universal values that are widely shared.

    Mohammed

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get research suggests a core set of universal values that are widely shared. from screen.

    UNIVERSAL VALUES

    UNIVERSAL VALUES - PEACE, FREEDOM, SOCIAL PROGRESS, EQUAL RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY – ACUTELY NEEDED, SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS AT TUBINGEN UNIVERSITY, GERMANY

    Following is the text of the lecture by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Global Ethics, entitled “Do We Still Have Universal Values?”, delivered today at Tübingen University, Germany:

    Let me start by thanking Professor Küng –- not only for that very kind introduction, but also for inviting me here to give this lecture.  I was deeply touched when, eighteen months ago in Berlin, he handed me a note asking me to do this as a birthday gift for him, at any time after his 75th birthday on 19 March 2003.

    As you know, dear Hans, I had not intended to make you wait so long for your birthday present.  I had hoped to be here on April 30th.  The pressure of world events made that impossible, but here I am now.  And yet I cannot really think of this lecture as a gift from me to you.  It is you who do me a great honour, by asking me to speak on your home turf, on a subject –- global ethics –- about which you have thought as profoundly as anyone in our time.

    Indeed, I realise now that the title I chose for my lecture might even strike you as a little offensive.  When someone has written as extensively and inspiringly about universal values as you have, it seems rather impertinent for me to march right into your Global Ethics Foundation and question whether we still have such things at all!

    Let me spare you any suspense, and tell you right now that my answer is Yes!  The values of peace, freedom, social progress, equal rights and human dignity, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are no less valid today than when, over half a century ago, those documents were drafted by representatives of many different nations and cultures.

    And they were not any more fully realized in actual human conduct at that time than they are now.  Those great documents expressed an optimistic vision, not a description of existing realities.  Let’s not forget that among the States that drafted and signed them was the Soviet Union, at the height of Stalin’s terror, as well as several unrepentant colonial powers.

    The values of our founders are still not fully realized.  Alas, far from it.  But they are much more broadly accepted today than they were a few decades ago.  The Universal Declaration, in particular, has been accepted in legal systems across the world, and has become a point of reference for people who long for human rights in every country.  The world has improved, and the United Nations has made an important contribution.

    But universal values are also more acutely needed, in this age of globalization, than ever before.

    Every society needs to be bound together by common values, so that its members know what to expect of each other, and have some shared principles by which to manage their differences without resorting to violence.

    That is true of local communities and of national communities.  Today, as globalization brings us all closer together, and our lives are affected almost instantly by things that people say and do on the far side of the world, we also feel the need to live as a global community.  And we can do so only if we have global values to bind us together.

    But recent events have shown that we cannot take our global values for granted.  I sense a great deal of anxiety around the world that the fabric of international relations may be starting to unravel –- and that globalization itself may be in jeopardy.

    Globalization has brought great opportunities, but also many new stresses and dislocations.  There is a backlash against it -- precisely because we have not managed it in accordance with the universal values we claim to believe in.

    In the Universal Declaration, we proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”.

    Just three years ago, in the Millennium Declaration, all States reaffirmed certain fundamental values as being “essential to international relations in the twenty-first century”:  freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature, and shared responsibility.  They adopted practical, achievable targets –- the Millennium Development Goals –- for relieving the blight of extreme poverty and making such rights as education, basic health care and clean water a reality for all.

    Many millions of people in the world today are still far from enjoying these rights in practice.  That could be changed, if governments in both rich and poor countries lived up to their commitments.  Yet, three years after the Millennium Declaration, our attention is focused on issues of war and peace, and we are in danger of forgetting these solemn commitments to fulfil basic human rights and human needs.

    Globalization has brought us closer together in the sense that we are all affected by each other’s actions, but not in the sense that we all share the benefits and the burdens.  Instead, we have allowed it to drive us further apart, increasing the disparities in wealth and power both between societies and within them.

    This makes a mockery of universal values.  It is not surprising that, in the backlash, those values have come under attack, at the very moment when we most need them.

    स्रोत : press.un.org

    Universal value

    Universal value

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to navigation Jump to search

    A value is a universal value if it has the same value or worth for all, or almost all, people. Spheres of human value encompass morality, aesthetic preference, human traits, human endeavour, and social order. Whether universal values exist is an unproven conjecture of moral philosophy and cultural anthropology, though it is clear that certain values are found across a great diversity of human cultures, such as primary attributes of physical attractiveness (e.g. youthfulness, symmetry) whereas other attributes (e.g. slenderness) are subject to aesthetic relativism as governed by cultural norms. This objection is not limited to aesthetics. Relativism concerning morals is known as moral relativism, a philosophical stance opposed to the existence of universal moral values.

    The claim for universal values can be understood in two different ways. First, it could be that something has a universal value when everybody it valuable. This was Isaiah Berlin's understanding of the term. According to Berlin, "...universal values....are values that a great many human beings in the vast majority of places and situations, at almost all times, do in fact hold in common, whether consciously and explicitly or as expressed in their behaviour..."[1] Second, something could have universal value when all people have to believe it has value. Amartya Sen interprets the term in this way, pointing out that when Mahatma Gandhi argued that non-violence is a universal value, he was arguing that all people have to value non-violence, not that all people value non-violence.[2] Many different things have been claimed to be of universal value, for example, fertility,[3] pleasure,[4] and democracy.[5] The issue of whether anything is of universal value, and, if so, what that thing or those things are, is relevant to psychology, political science, and philosophy, among other fields.

    Contents

    1 Perspectives from various disciplines

    1.1 Philosophy 1.2 Sociology

    1.3 Psychology and the search for universal values

    2 Criticism 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References 6 External links

    Perspectives from various disciplines[edit]

    Philosophy[edit]

    Philosophical study of universal value addresses questions such as the meaningfulness of universal value or whether universal values exist.

    Sociology[edit]

    Sociological study of universal value addresses how such values are formed in a society.

    Psychology and the search for universal values[edit]

    See also: Theory of Basic Human Values and Moral foundations theory

    S. H. Schwartz, along with a number of psychology colleagues, has carried out empirical research investigating whether there are universal values, and what those values are. Schwartz defined 'values' as "conceptions of the desirable that influence the way people select action and evaluate events".[6] He hypothesised that universal values would relate to three different types of human need: biological needs, social co-ordination needs, and needs related to the welfare and survival of groups. Schwartz's results from a series of studies that included surveys of more than 25,000 people in 44 countries with a wide range of different cultural types suggest that there are fifty-six specific universal values and ten types of universal value.[7] Schwartz's ten types of universal value are: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security. Below are each of the value types, with the specific related values alongside:

    : authority; leadership; dominance, social power, wealth

    : success; capability; ambition; influence; intelligence; self-respect

    : pleasure; enjoying life

    : daring activities; varied life; exciting life

    : creativity; freedom; independence; curiosity; choosing your own goals

    : broadmindedness; wisdom; social justice; equality; a world at peace; a world of beauty; unity with nature; protecting the environment; inner harmony

    : helpfulness; honesty; forgiveness; loyalty; responsibility; friendship

    : accepting one's portion in life; humility; devoutness; respect for tradition; moderation

    : self-discipline; obedience

    : cleanliness; family security; national security; stability of social order; reciprocation of favours; health; sense of belonging

    Schwartz also tested an eleventh possible universal value, 'spirituality', or 'the goal of finding meaning in life', but found that it does not seem to be recognised in all cultures.[8]

    Criticism[edit]

    The Chinese Communist Party has listed universal value as one of seven forces that threaten the Party's power, along with Western constitutional democracy, neoliberalism, civil society, Western journalism, discussion that challenge the historical legitimacy of the Party, and questionings over China's political policies.[9][10]

    See also[edit]

    Value system Cultural universal Human rights Moral hierarchy Moral universalism

    Notes[edit]

    ^ Jahanbegloo 1991, p. 37^ Sen 1999, p. 12^ Bolin & Whelehan 1999^ Mason 2006^ Sen 1999^ Schwartz & Bilsky 1987, p. 550^ Schwartz 1994^ Schwartz 1992^ "Netizen Voices: University Warns Against "Universal Values," "Civil Society," and "The West's Idea of Journalism"". 10 August 2022.

    स्रोत : en.wikipedia.org

    Values

    The first pillar of Giving Voice to Values is values. Know and appeal to a short list of widely shared values.

    GVV Pillar 1: Values

    Know and appeal to a short list of widely shared values. Don’t assume too little – or too much – commonality with the viewpoints of others.

    Discussion Questions

    1. BEFORE viewing the video, you may wish to poll students with the following questions:

    Strongly Agree / Somewhat Agree / Not Sure / Somewhat Disagree / Strongly Disagree

    Strongly Agree / Somewhat Agree / Not Sure / Somewhat Disagree / Strongly Disagree

    Strongly Agree / Somewhat Agree / Not Sure / Somewhat Disagree / Strongly Disagree

    2. AFTER viewing the video, you may wish to re-visit the polling questions above and discuss whether participants have any new insights.

    3. Is agreeing on a set of shared values enough to resolve differences in cultural understandings of those values?

    4. What are some examples of cases in which appealing to common values can help smooth over differences of opinion?

    5. Think of someone whom you think of as VERY different from yourself. When have you agreed with them about something significant? What values do you share with them? What made it possible/easier for you to find agreement with them in this instance?

    6. Have you ever worked across cultures, or lived in a culture different from the one you were raised in? If so, have you encountered significant differences or conflicts? If so, what were they based upon? For example, actual differences in individual “values?” Differences in the enabling context, such as the level of legal enforcement or regulatory oversight? Other causes? Have you seen examples of workable approaches for addressing these differences?

    A video on this topic can be watched here: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=48267765

    A written case of this phenomenon, “Not an Option Even To Consider (A),” can be found at the Giving Voice to Values Curriculum website.

    Case Studies

    Pao & Gender Bias

    On May 10, 2012, executive Ellen Pao filed a lawsuit against her employer, Silicon Valley-based tech venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (Kleiner Perkins), on grounds of gender discrimination. Pao began working at Kleiner Perkins in 2005. She became a junior investing partner, but after several years at the firm was passed over for a senior partner position and was eventually terminated. Pao claimed that men with similar profiles and achievements were promoted instead.

    In late 2011, Pao and a coworker were asked by a senior partner to come up with ways of improving the firm’s treatment of women, but the senior partner, according to Pao, was “noncommittal.” On January 4, 2012, Pao took this issue a step further and wrote a formal memorandum to several of her superiors and the firm’s outside counsel. In the memorandum, she described harassment she had received while at the firm, claiming she had been excluded from meetings by male partners, and asserting an absence of training and policies to prevent discrimination at the firm. Pao’s memo indicated that she wished to work with the firm on improving conditions for women. She was fired on October 1, 2012. The lawsuit went to trial in February 2015.

    In a testimony during the trial, Pao explained that she sued because there was no process for HR issues at the firm and believed she had exhausted all options for addressing these issues internally: “It’s been a long journey, and I’ve tried many times to bring Kleiner Perkins to the right path. I think there should be equal opportunities for women and men to be venture capitalists. I wanted to be a VC but I wasn’t able to do so in that environment. And I think it’s important…to make those opportunities available in the future. And I wanted to make sure my story was told.”

    Pao’s lawsuit made four claims against Kleiner Perkins: 1) they discriminated against Pao on the basis of gender by failing to promote her and/or terminating her employment; 2) they retaliated by failing to promote her because of conversations she had in late 2011 and/or the memo from January 4, 2012; 3) they failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination against her; and 4) they retaliated against her by terminating her employment because of conversations she had in late 2011 and/or the memo from January 4, 2012.

    Pao’s legal team argued that men were promoted ahead of women, women who experienced sexual harassment received little support, and women’s ideas were often more quickly dismissed than men’s. Pao’s performance reviews revealed contradictory criticisms such as “too bold” and “too quiet.” Pao also accused company partner Ajit Nazre of pressuring her into an affair and subsequently retaliating against her after she ended the relationship. She said she received an inappropriate gift containing erotic imagery and was present while men at the firm were making inappropriate conversation. Further, the legal team described how Pao and other women had been left out of certain meetings and gatherings.

    The defense’s case focused on Pao’s performance and character, noting that Pao received several negative performance reviews and acted entitled or resentful toward other employees and was not a team player. Evidence included evaluations, self-evaluations, meeting summaries, and messages both personal and professional. Kleiner Perkins claimed that Pao was paid more than her male counterparts, including bonuses and training. The firm also argued that Pao’s job description was mostly managerial and that limiting her involvement in investing was therefore not a form of discrimination.

    स्रोत : ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    Mohammed 2 month ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer