The Immeasurable Task of Reaching Universality
The Immeasurable Task of Reaching Universality
We like to believe that with certain morals and principles in life there is a universal agreement among all human beings, with the unjustness of slavery and genocide for instance. Yet African American slavery and the mass genocide of Jews in Germany were part of our world’s history. So then, are we incapable of formulating even such simple universal values? No, we’re not, because although we have different starting points in terms of our religious, philosophical and moral beliefs, we still end up agreeing on basic human right norms for the most part (Rawls, 1987). John Rawls proposes that the underlying justification for that agreement may vary but we certainly can agree on the norms of conduct and derive the same human rights norms collectively known as the overlapping consensus (1987). Or at least this subjective universality is what we hope to emulate if we want to achieve a degree of global universality. This form of social unity however doesn’t occur simply due to a mere convergence of different self and group interests, or due to any form of political bargaining, but is morally possible both in its objective and premises over time (Rawls, 1987).
By way of the same reasoning then, we could apply it to our conception of science and field of the research and practice. A novice business executive such as Ken Smith came in with so many ideas and such vigor fresh out of college that he was confident he could transform a small machine tool manufacturing company into a happy, booming business (2008). The lessons he was taught during his schooling as an MBA student on how to apply concepts such as the Bright Side of Management in modern day business contexts backfired when the employees who were used to a whole different set of leading principles weren’t as receptive to his ideas (Smith, 2008). It was the big red flashing light and the loud bell that encouraged greater productivity and consistency in work performance
We like to believe that with certain morals and principles in life there is a universal agreement among all human beings, with the unjustness of slavery and genocide for instance. Yet African American slavery and the mass genocide of Jews in Germany were part of our world’s history. So then, are we incapable of formulating even such simple universal values? No, we’re not, because although we have different starting points in terms of our religious, philosophical and moral beliefs, we still end up agreeing on basic human right norms for the most part (Rawls, 1987). John Rawls proposes that the underlying justification for that agreement may vary but we certainly can agree on the norms of conduct and derive the same human rights norms collectively known as the overlapping consensus (1987). Or at least this subjective universality is what we hope to emulate if we want to achieve a degree of global universality. This form of social unity however doesn’t occur simply due to a mere convergence of different self and group interests, or due to any form of political bargaining, but is morally possible both in its objective and premises over time (Rawls, 1987).
By way of the same reasoning then, we could apply it to our conception of science and field of the research and practice. A novice business executive such as Ken Smith came in with so many ideas and such vigor fresh out of college that he was confident he could transform a small machine tool manufacturing company into a happy, booming business (2008). The lessons he was taught during his schooling as an MBA student on how to apply concepts such as the Bright Side of Management in modern day business contexts backfired when the employees who were used to a whole different set of leading principles weren’t as receptive to his ideas (Smith, 2008). It was the big red flashing light and the loud bell that encouraged greater productivity and consistency in work performance
References: Barnhart, M. (2004). An Overlapping Consensus: A Critique of Two Approaches. Review of Politics, 66(2), 257-283. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. (2006). Academy of Management Journal Editors ' Forum: What Makes Management Research Interesting, and Why Does it Matter? Academy Of Management Journal, 49(1), 9-15. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785494 Fletcher, G. J. O. (1996). Realism versus relativism in psychology. The American Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 409-409. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423014 Kalish, C. (1998). Natural and artifactual kinds: Are children realists or relativists about categories? Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 376-391. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.376 Rawls, J. (1987). The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/764257 Smith, K. G. (2008). Fighting the orthodoxy: Learning to be pragmatic. The Academy Of Management Review, 33(2), 304-308. doi:10.2307/20159398