To attain happiness and to avoid mood disorders, which should we pursue

The messages of modern society are all too familiar to us: buy more, eat more, sleep more, take more pictures, and care less about the effects of our actions. We are encouraged to maximize pleasure while avoiding anything that inconveniences us. We cloister ourselves with our material goods and social media habits, promoting self-centeredness. This induces a fluctuating happiness in which phases of pleasure and displeasure repeatedly alternate, which can result in various mood disorders and has been linked to decreases in well-being. In this article, we are going to analyze self-centeredness and its consequences and also interpret its role in a variety of mood disorders and various areas of life.

The Self-centeredness / Selflessness Happiness Model (SSHM) is a theoretical model proposed by Dambrun et al. in 2011 [1]. This model represents different sorts of happiness that are dependent upon the self, particularly the structure of the self. They claim that self-centered psychological functioning derives from how someone perceives themselves and the belief that they are powerful, permanent, and independent. This functioning causes fluctuating happiness and afflictive affects which are also the roots of many mood disturbances. This is heavily contrasted by the perception of the self as flexible which leads to selfless psychological functioning and is a crucial factor at attaining more authentic/durable happiness [1].

After proposing this model, Michael Dambrun conducted a study in 2017 that built upon this model. According to this research, self-centered psychological functioning allows individuals to fluctuate between joy and sorrow, a vacillation that results in afflictive affects. Conversely, selfless psychological functioning gives the individual more emotional stability and feeling of harmony with the environment. They tested these hypotheses in two studies consisting of a heterogeneous sample of citizens (n=547). Analyses of these two studies indicate that self-centeredness (measured by egocentrism and materialism) and selflessness (measured by transcendence and connectedness to others) were two different psychological constructs rather than strict oppositional ideas.

In addition to showing the distinct functioning, these analyses also revealed that self-centered functioning is significantly associated with fluctuating happiness that is the root of afflictive affects. However, selflessness is linked to authentic/durable happiness, which is the result of perceiving the self as flexible and harmonious with the environment and universe. These associations are mediated by distinct psychological processes. For self-centeredness, afflictive affects play a crucial role in the correlation with fluctuating happiness in self-centered individuals.

In contrast, selfless individuals attain authentic-durable happiness that is partially mediated by emotional stability and perceiving themselves as harmonious with others and the universe (2). In our view, individuals who are more concerned about their happiness are more susceptible to mood fluctuations and disorders, while individuals who have more significant interest for the happiness of others attain more robust and durable emotions.

These studies also suggest that self-centeredness causes problems in society; as such, we will to analyze the results later.

Fluctuating happiness in the self-centered individual

The idea of the self as a real, permanent entity with its distinct boundaries results in self-centered psychological functioning. Laborit’s [3] study suggests that each organized structure in the form of an entity seeks gratifications that positively reinforce it and avoids things that risk its homeostasis. The hedonic principal is a major ruler in self-centered functioning and is deeply associated with egoism, egocentrism, an exaggerated importance given to the self, and ego inflation (through material possessions, for example) (e.g. Higgins,1997) [4].

The hedonic principle and its associations are also correlated with some personality disorders, particularly narcissistic personality disorder [5]. This principle induces the individual to focus on attaining pleasure and avoiding displeasure. Feelings of temporary happiness, joy, and gratification are the result of impulsive actions for attaining pleasure and avoiding displeasure. However, only the presence or absence of certain stimuli reinforce the individual and only give temporary pleasure and happiness (Wallace & Shapiro, 2006 [6]). The experience of pleasure depends on circumstances, is an unstable condition that may soon become neutral or may be displaced with displeasure. (i.e., hedonic adaptation, e.g., Brickman, Coates & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Lyubomirsky, 2011 [7]). Focusing on attaining more pleasure and avoiding displeasure lead an individual to recognize and realize the impossibility of attaining valued objects, durable pleasure, and cause them to repeatedly vacillate between pleasure and displeasure and the arising affects such as frustration, nervousness, anger, hostility, or jealousy, all of which damage their well-being and health (e.g., Miller) [8]. Contrarily, altruism, also called selflessness or focusing on others’ happiness, is significantly associated with a higher quality of well-being, health, and longevity [9].

Self-centeredness cause depressive symptomatology

A self-centered lifestyle may cause not only mood disorders but also social problems that also increase the prevalence of different mood disorders. Loneliness is a big problem in contemporary society, though we mostly live in crowded cities adorned with skyscrapers. As the title describes, a study conducted in 2017 shows loneliness and self-centeredness have a reciprocal effect that cause depression and various mood disorders, as well as health and social problems [10].

Loneliness increases not only the motivation to repair or replace deficient social relationships, but also the implicit motivation for self-preservation. John T. Cacioppo et al. reported a cross-lagged analysis of 10 waves of longitudinal data (n=229) on loneliness and self-centeredness (as gauged by Feeney and Collins’s measure of choric self-focus) in a representative sample of middle-aged and other adults. Loneliness increases the implicit motivation for self-preservation, and loneliness in the current year anticipates self-centeredness in the following year beyond what is reasoned by current-year demographic variables, self-centeredness, depressive symptomatology, and overall negative mood and emotions. Their study also revealed that self-centeredness in the current year foretells loneliness in the subsequent year, a reciprocal relationship that could potentially contribute to the maintenance of loneliness [12].

Generation Me and its consequences on human mood

An increase in narcissism with some indicators of increased self-focus in Americans born after 1970 leads authors to describe that generation as “Generation Me” [5, 12]. This narcissism and self-focus are also intimately related to self-centered psychological functioning since both are formed by an exaggerated importance given to the self, ego-inflation, and so on. We think self-centered psychological functioning may also be considered as a part of this dynamic, thus being a member of Generation Me may be one of the major risk factors for narcissistic personality traits and disorder [2, 12].

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by a grandiose self-view, unrealistic sense of entitlement, exaggerated feelings of self-importance, and a lack of understanding of others’ feelings [13, 14]. Narcissists who consider themselves to be superior to others, and also have unrealistic expectations for the future, become angry and aggressive when in trouble, take more resources for themselves and leave less for others, and value money, fame, and image over family, helping others, and community. Though narcissism has some benefits, like public speaking, it has lots of adverse effects on human mood and behavior and comorbidities with psychological disorders [15].

Selfless functioning

The principle of “harmony” has a primary role in the selflessly functioning individual; harmony directs all mental activities (conation, motivation, attention, emotion, cognition, behavior). Harmony and emotional stability are associated with empathy, benevolence, compassion, and deep respect; all of these have a beneficial effect on behavior and a reduction of psychological distress [2]. Many studies have revealed the results of altruism on happiness and health and have consistently found a deep and intimate connection between altruism and current and future health and well-being.

References

1. Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15 (2), 138-157.
2. Dambrun M. Self-centeredness and selflessness: happiness correlates and mediating psychological processes. Hung T-M, ed. PeerJ. 2017; 5:e3306. doi:10.7717/peerj.3306.
3. Laborit (1979) Laborit H. L’inhibition de l’action: biologie, physiologie, psychologie, sociologie. Edition Masson; Paris: 1979.
4. Higgins (1997) Higgins ET. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist. 1997; 52:1280–1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Jean M. Twenge The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We Vol 1, Issue 1, pp. 11 – 16,First published date: March-01-20131177/2167696812466548
6. Wallace & Shapiro (2006) Wallace BA, Shapiro SL. Mental balance and well-being: building bridges between Buddhism and Western psychology. American Psychologist. 2006;61:690–701. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.690. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. Brickman P., Coates D., Janoff-Bulman R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 917–92710.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Miller et al. (1996) Miller TQ, Smith TW, Turner CW, Guijarro ML, Hallet AJ. A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychological Bulletin. 1996;119:322–348. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.322. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. “altruism (n .)”.Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
10. Cacioppo JT, Chen HY, Cacioppo S. Reciprocal Influences Between Loneliness and Self-Centeredness: A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis in a Population-Based Sample of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Adults. Pers Soc Psychol Bull.2017 Aug;43(8):1125-1135. doi: 10.1177/0146167217705120. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
11. Twenge JM. Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—And more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press; 2006.
12. PubMed Caligor, E; Levy, KN; Yeomans, FE (May 2015). “Narcissistic personality disorder: diagnostic and clinical challenges.”. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 172 (5): 415–22. PMID25930131. doi:1176/appi.ajp.2014.14060723
13. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5(5th ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. pp. 645, 669–72.
14. Cai H, Shi Y, Fang X, Luo YLL. Narcissism predicts impulsive buying: phenotypic and genetic evidence. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:881. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00881.
15. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5(5th ed.). Washington [etc.]: American Psychiatric Publishing. 2013. pp. 645, 669–72.

Only through such a social contract can a society be balanced and promising, and can its members live in dignity and respect. A society of this caliber can offer the most convenient opportunities for the young to learn, and for the learned to share with others their innermost inspirations. In this kind of society, libraries will be packed with knowledge-seekers and learning will be the nature of its individuals; thoughts will reflect on prayers and prayers. Then the land will be a land of virtue, and its residents will overflow with felicity.

An individual whose society is under siege by antagonism all around and in a constant state of decay cannot live with dignity and honor. In such a society, knowledge cannot be taught or learned; the faithful cannot fulfill their duties towards the Creator. Individuals cannot flourish in this society, especially if these individuals live side by side with enemies they are not even aware of. They grow in the same cradle with these enemies, and their heart beats in their rhythm, but they cannot detect the difference.

Yes, our biggest concern is that the adversaries are already streaming through the veins of society, as if they were cancer cells, deteriorating society day by day. We fear that the members of this society are so numbed that they are being devoured slowly and they don’t feel anything. If a society’s foresight is tied and blinded, and if its enemies are sneaky and relentless, then the Trojan Horse is already inside; the castle is in great danger.

The invaders market and sell banal and cheap old thoughts as diamonds; clowns impersonate celebrities; and some narrow minded, miserable creatures are respected, as if they were apostles. In the meantime, the altruistic national spirit erodes and is washed away by the floods of northern icebergs.

If you would investigate all segments of that society, and all the institutions of the country, you would not find any sign of that spirit which belongs to you. You would not see the hunger for knowledge, the love for truth; you would not find sincerity and pureness, nor morality and ethical values. The body of the nation is vermiculated; knowledge is the work of jugglers, and educational institutions are circuses. There are methods in which (as if they search for truth) unbelief and immorality are taught to the next generations. Hearts are merciless; emotions are vulgar and inhumane; and eyes are without foresight and substance. It’s as if the crowds are suffering from depression, ignoring all the spiritual and moral foundations that could maintain a society; carnal pleasures are promoted.

In our day and age, the commodity (goods, love of goods) – which is a bulldozer that crushes the thoughts and emotions of the youth and obstructs them everywhere – has claimed to be the idol of the crowds. Technology which has not been tamed and aligned with the true essence of being human has become a plague. This plague has occupied our lives at the expense of selfless living for the community. It has obstructed lofty aims from flourishing.

For all these reasons, people need to pay more attention to their engulfed heart and ossified spirit, while the restoration of their physical body goes on.

Those whose vision is in the future, and who promise to raise that future on their shoulders, need to feel the responsibility of their work within their souls in every step they take. Only then will they show a real sincerity in their duties. The cause and thoughts of these sincere ones will not be tied up with circumstances and the reality of life; in contrast, circumstances will take form according to their convictions. They will prove their presence by revolting against a life that is spent for only worldly enjoyments, on the deprivation of real love and irresponsibility.

A society that evolves to this point with the guidance of masters and teachers is ready to renew itself and go into a renaissance. If we look hopeful, it is because this kind of new existence has shown its signs on our horizons, due only to our strong trust and confidence in the pure essence of being human and the grace of God.

Discussions over personal liberty and government intervention are as old as modern governments, as J.S. Mill’s writings show.

John Stuart Mill was among the many philosophers, both before and after, who attempted to determine when government intervention in the private lives of individuals was legitimate. The authoritarian regimes of 19^th century Europe triggered thinkers to study citizen’s rights and state powers. Mill attempted to regulate the actions of these authoritarian regimes by distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate government intervention in his book On Liberty. Mill’s ideas were one influence among many on the structure and laws of the modern nation state. Using his ideas on freedom and government as a starting point, we can discuss psychological harm, human fallibility, and social responsibilities.

Mill, in On Liberty, identifies two mechanisms for determining legitimate government intervention: the harm principle and utilitarianism. The harm principle states that government can only legitimately interfere with the actions of individuals if the actions of the individuals harm others against their will. Thus, if an action does not harm another against their will, the government cannot interfere. Notice that an individual can harm themselves or even other people with the appropriate consent. Effectively, the harm principle constitutes an absolute bar to government intervention on unharmful private action.

The second mechanism, utilitarianism, comes into play after government intervention is considered to be legitimate due to harmful consequences of private actions. At this point, the government must do a utility calculation, or a cost-benefit analysis, in which it must determine whether government intervention will result in more harm than the private action it will attempt to stop. If the analysis indicates that government intervention will result in more harm, government intervention would be considered illegitimate, and vice versa. Thus, while the harm principle constituted an absolute categorical bar, the utilitarianism mechanic requires a case-by-case determination of the legitimacy of government intervention.

In order to apply the harm principle it is important not only to know what the principle is, but also what constitutes harm. The broader the definition of harm becomes, the larger the pool of actions that the government can interfere with becomes. In general, the classification of physical damage to body and property as harm is generally accepted by society as well as by Mill. However, the definition of harm can include things other than just physical damage. In order to properly apply the harm principle, it must be determined whether psychological harm and failure to act can be classified as harm, warranting government intervention.

Psychological Harm

Can feeling distress, being upset, or experiencing psychological harm due to another individual’s actions be categorized as harm? If one were to accept distress as harm, then the definition of harm has effectively been broadened to include every instance in which one feels discomfort or is upset by another’s action, expanding the sphere of legitimate government intervention.

Mill does not determine distress or psychological harm to be harm. The distress or psychological harm Mill refers to is one originating from a disagreement of values between two individuals. For example, one individual may like the color blue while another dislikes it. The distress, anger, resentment, or any other negative feelings the other may feel when the first wears a blue shirt is the psychological harm that Mill refers to. A more consequential example would be the distress that a Democrat may feel about the ideas expressed at a Republican rally. The views expressed at the rally are clearly contrary to the individual’s beliefs, yet the distress originating from this ideological difference cannot be categorized as harm. If it was categorized as harm, then the government could intervene whenever actions or speech was contrary to the ideology and beliefs of the most powerful or the most vocal.

Mill, in On Liberty, states that “unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and to say that we may persecute others because we are right and they must not persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves” (1). Here he attempts to stop the use of the harm principle in attempts to impose beliefs or one’s own moral values on others. He argues that imposing views on another is wrong, because one would not want others to impose their views on them. Additionally, Mill emphasizes the fallibility of human reasoning and preferences, stating that despite one’s conviction in one’s own position in an argument, there is always the possibility of error.

Admittance of the fallibility is not only a sign of humility and recognition of possibilities, but also a very real demonstration of understanding one’s own limitations inherent in being human. This principle has been recognized and applied by many scholars and thinkers in addition to Mill, like Socrates and Said Nursi. For example, in The Republic, Plato quotes Socrates as exclaiming “[a]s for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (2).

Similarly, Said Nursi demonstrates the same recognition of the fallibility of human beings in his Risale-i Nur and attributes true knowledge only to God. This is clearly displayed in his use of text from the Quran at the beginning and ending of all the chapters in The Words. Thus, Nursi begins his work by drawing from what he considers the true source of knowledge and ends with that same infallible source.

Lastly, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes seems to support Mill’s position against persecution by arguing in Leviathan that “do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself” (3). Hobbes’ view is in effect a version of the golden rule, limiting social interaction to only actions one would deem acceptable if done to him/her. In congruence with Hobbes’s golden rule, Mill argues that imposing one’s views on others is wrong, and that feeling upset due to the failure of others to conform to those views is not harm. Thus, even if the actions of an individual upset or cause psychological harm to others, the government cannot legitimately interfere.

Failure to Act

Though Mill prevents distress or psychological harm from being used to legitimize government intervention over an individual’s actions, he permits failure to act to be classified as harm. In situations where a failure to act causes a negative or harmful outcome, government intervention would be legitimate. For example, the government may prosecute a firefighter if his negligence allowed a building to burn down. However, classifying failure to act or inaction as harm is dangerous, because people are not capable of infinite actions in a moment. The jurisdiction of government intervention is expanded tremendously by this classification. Why would Mill, who constructed a mechanism for limiting government intervention, expand government power in this way? And what restraints can be applied to the failure-to-act classification?

Socrates’ ideas, as expressed in The Republic by Plato, provide some insight into answering the previous questions. After examining Plato’s views in The Republic, it is possible to claim that Socrates would agree with Mill in including the failure-to-act as harm. His definition of a just society is a society in which everyone is doing their job or role in society (4). From this, one can assume that a just action within a society would be whatever action is in accordance with the job of the individual as determined by his soul and position in society. Thus, failure to perform one’s job would then be classified as an unjust action by Plato, open to government intervention for the restoration of social justice.

Socrates’ view seems to emphasize the nature of the action that the individual is failing to do. If the failure to act involved the failure to do one’s job in society, then the failure to act would be considered unjust. On the other hand, if the failure to act involved inaction about an issue that was not the individual’s responsibility, then it is possible to conclude that the failure to act in this instance is not an unjust action. Thus, this approach distinguishes between a firefighter who chooses not to stop a fire from a regular citizen who chooses not to stop a fire. The firefighter neglects his responsibility, opening him to criminal prosecution, while the regular citizen’s inaction is not open to prosecution. By allowing the failure to act to be considered as harm, Mill avoided conflicting with the conditional nature of determining whether the failure to act is just or unjust as extrapolated from Plato’s views.

Socrates’ and Mill’s analysis regarding the failure to act is based solely on the legal and formal responsibilities of the individual. The police have a responsibility to stop crime, and parents have a responsibility to take care of their children, etc. Each nation’s unique constitution and laws make legal responsibilities country-specific and unique. For example, many European states, like Germany and France, require citizens to provide assistance to persons in danger (5). However, the duty to rescue those in peril does not exist in other countries, like the United States (6). Of course, most people call the authorities for help and attempt to provide first-aid, but the fact remains that in most of the United States, there is no legal obligation to rescue. Each country determines the legal responsibilities of its citizens, some choosing to expand and some choosing to restrict the extent of responsibilities.

For many people, informal responsibilities extend beyond formal responsibilities; these are often based on the individual’s religion, culture, and ethics. While government intervention may not be legitimate for failures of informal responsibilities according to Mill, informal responsibilities constitute an important piece of the society. For example, children have an informal responsibility to care for their parents, especially during their old age. If children ignore this responsibility, the government cannot and should not intervene. After all, the government is not the ultimate solution for every social problem, and each member of the country may not believe in the same informal responsibilities due to different culture, religion, and ethics. Instead, the true solutions to failures in informal responsibilities are education in social values and decency, social structures, communities, and institutions.

Mill’s principles on government intervention in the lives of free people provided a platform to discuss psychological harm and social responsibilities. Government can provide solutions for certain social issues, but not for all. In recognition of this, Mill wrote of an alternative limited government to the authoritarian regimes of his time. In this alternative, conflicting and controversial ideologies could co-exist, and government would only regulate formal responsibilities. The burden rests on the society to care for the informal responsibilities.

Notes

1. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, 155
2. Plato, The Republic, (Plato 354c, book 1)
3. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Pt. 1, Ch. 15, para. 35
4. Kara, Mahmut. “Rethinking Plato: Philosophical Idealism and Political Totalitarianism.” Fountain Magazine, April-June 2001.
5. Weinrib, Ernest J. “The Case for a Duty to Rescue.” The Yale Law Journal , Vol. 90, No. 2 (Dec., 1980), pp. 247-293 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. URL:<http://www.jstor.org/stable/795987>.
6. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

Cost-benefit analysis of piracy

To begin, I want to analyze piracy free from any ethical or normative judgments. Piracy is an act, and like any other act, it has costs and benefits. A utility calculation or a cost-benefit analysis shows that the material benefits far outweigh the minimal material costs of piracy. Entertainment media usually has a monetary price that must be paid in order to consume it, like buying tickets to watch a movie at the theater. On the other hand, given that the individual possesses the technical knowledge, the individual can receive the same entertainment for free if he chooses to pirate the media instead of buying it. While some individuals who pirate are caught and do pay fees, the probability of these negative consequences are very small. Given no other external factors, this cost-benefit analysis indicates that the materialistic benefits outweigh the materialistic costs.

Additionally, from a behavioral perspective, piracy makes sense. When a person commits piracy, they are immediately presented with the benefit of entertainment or utility. The behavior is immediately rewarded and reinforced. The costs are not immediately evident, and can be easily overlooked, because the probability of being caught and punished for pirating is very small. In contrast to the act of physically stealing the DVD of a movie, the act of illegally downloading the movie is much less risky and only entails the seemingly innocent pressing of buttons. When contemplating whether to physically steal another DVD of a movie, the person would weigh whether the entertainment benefit is really worth suffering the stress and energy as well as the high risk of being caught and punished by the law. When contemplating whether to illegally download a movie, the person would only need to weigh whether the entertainment benefit is greater than pressing some buttons. With such low risks and such immediate gratification, the behavior of piracy is easily engrained.

This cost-benefit analysis in a vacuum free from any external forces like ethics, morality, and religion sufficiently shows why piracy is so prevalent. It is easy and rewarding. However, people do not live in a vacuum.

The ethical factor

If piracy is theft, then it is unethical, immoral, and wrong. And it is indeed theft. All digital media whether film, music, ebooks, or games are products of another’s hard work. Just like a farmer’s crops or an author’s book, digital media would not exist but for the producer. Thus, similarly, the producer has taken ownership of digital media by production. Modern copyright and digital rights laws are evidence of this societal norm. So, if it is wrong, why do some people pirate digital media anyway?

When a person is given the choice between paying for the entertainment and consuming it for free, ethical principles clash with desire. In order to resolve cognitive dissonance, the discomfort caused by the clash of conflicting inner-beliefs, individuals will attempt to justify their actions and alter their beliefs (1). In the case of piracy, an individual might conclude that the producers of the entertainment media are already wealthy and do not need more money. Alternatively, the individual may decide that his financial circumstances do not allow him to pay for the products, forcing him to illegally obtain them. Ultimately, these justifications allow the individual to live more comfortably with their decision to pirate the product.

Justifying piracy

In addition to common justifications for any other ethical violations, piracy has a unique justification due to the unique nature of digital media. This unique justification is that the illegal downloading of digital media does not harm the producer, because it does not represent a loss of revenue for the producer of the game, movie, or song. Given the digital nature of entertainment media, a pirated copy of a game does not directly mean a loss of revenue equal to the price of the game. For example, when an item in the physical world, such as a watch, is stolen from a store, the store loses money that is equal to the sum of the cost of the watch and the profit from the sale of the watch. If the thief had not stolen the watch, the store could have sold it to someone else. In contrast, when an individual obtains a pirated copy of a digital media, the ability of the producer to sell a copy of the digital media to someone else is not inhibited in anyway. In other words, the benefits or entertainment experienced by the individual who chooses to pirate does not result in a loss for the producer. Those who have this justification would then conclude that piracy only has positive consequences.

This justification, unique to digital products, has two main deficiencies. First, piracy can lead to loss of revenue to the producer if a person who would have otherwise purchased the product chooses to pirate it. Aggregating all the individual acts of piracy can lead to a cumulative loss of revenue of many millions of dollars. Second, loss of revenue is not the only reason piracy is immoral. The primary reason why piracy is unethical is because it constitutes a taking of another property, violating another’s fundamental property rights. If a producer chooses to share its property with only those who pay for it, then the taking of that property without paying for it is a violation of fundamental property rights. An independent showing of damage or loss of revenue is not necessary to prove its wrongness.

Habit

Another possible explanation for the prevalence of piracy is habit. Once an individual has committed piracy, despite ethical prescriptive to the contrary, the individual experiences the benefits and joys of that piece of entertainment. As previously mentioned, this immediate reward can lead to a cycle that constantly reinforces the behavior until it has become habitual. The case study of the video game, Proun, can provide some insight.

Proun, a low budget game, was released under the pay-what-you-want pricing method which allows consumers to legally obtain the product at whatever price they decide to pay including for zero dollars. In other words, people could legally get the game for free from the developer’s official website. Essentially, the developer removed monetary concerns from the utility calculation. According to the released statistics, approximately 40% of used copies were pirated (2). Individuals chose to pirate the game, despite being able to obtain the game legally for free.

The implication of the Proun case study is that price may not be the sole determinant for pirating behavior. A possible explanation for the observed pirating behavior could be that obtaining entertainment media through illegal means has become habitual to a significant portion of the population. Due to the low risks associated with piracy, individuals who have chosen to pirate media experience no consequences that would deter their actions, making piracy their normal means of acquiring any form of software, irrelevant of whether or not the software is free. In other words, habitual piracy has become legitimate in their eyes. After the initial act, the individual no longer considers the ethicality of their actions. Every subsequent act merely reinforces the habit.

References

1. See also Yerli, Selnur Hatice. “Cognitive Dissonance and the Psychology of Sin.” The Fountain 80, March-April 2011.
2. van Dongen, Joost. “Proun sales data revealed: Proun is a big success! Pay What You Want is not!.” <http://joostdevblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/proun-is-big-success-pay-what-you-want.html>

Loneliness is a serious public health concern, akin to both obesity and smoking. Why is it not treated as such? Through faith, we can combat this growing crisis.

Loneliness is a state when people are unable to share their inner world with anyone around them. It is very natural that a person desires to be alone from time to time. When this is a short term desire, it can be a means of acquiring harmony with life; however when it becomes chronic, it is harmful for human health. Therefore, solitude is like a sword which has two sharp sides. Solitude in itself is not good or bad; rather the period and severity of it defines if it is good or bad. The severity of loneliness is not measured by how many people that individual has in their social environment; it is measured by how the individual feels in his inner world. In modern societies, loneliness is an important topic of multidisciplinary research, especially in our times due to overuse of social media, as “loneliness” is quickly becoming endemic, threatening our public and individual health.

One of the leading factors behind the increase of loneliness is the spread of immigration, which suddenly tears people from their original cultures and from their families. With the social bonds weakened or broken, loneliness is more severely and increasingly felt. For example according to the 2006 records, 29 million people in the US, a predominantly immigrant nation, were living alone. When compared to the records from 1980, this means a 30% increase in the number of people living alone. Another shocking number is that while 10% of people said they wouldn’t share their personal matters or trust with another person in 1985, this number increased to 25% in 2004.

In our times, loneliness and isolation have become as risky as smoking and obesity. The latest research in neurobiology and clinical research has shown that chronic loneliness has negative effects on the heart, and the immune and nervous systems. Contraction and resistance are much higher in the veins of people experiencing chronic loneliness. Blood pressure rises with the arteries narrowed and shrunk. This makes the heart beat abnormally faster, and this results in the corrosion and laceration of the capillaries. According to epidemiological studies, people who feel alone tend to have shorter life spans and illnesses such as heart disease and depression are at higher risk. They’ve also proven that people socially isolated or feeling lonely are more likely to catch a viral infection.

Studies have shown that, an individual can still feel lonely even though the number of people around them is high. Their social environment, statue, reputation, and property are only of formal assistance and they do not directly prevent an individual from feeling alone. Spiritual loneliness can exacerbate this feeling. Without a deep spiritual life to seek comfort in, they can fall further into depression when faced with problems.

Genetic thermostat and activation of loneliness

There are parts of the human brain which almost work as a thermostat and activate loneliness. Since the information for these parts of the brain are encoded in our genes they are called the genetic thermostat. This genetic thermostat, which we have inherited from our parents, has the duty to adjust the time of response we give to a trigger. Socio-cultural factors and genetic inheritance are assigned to determine the thermostat’s intensity and period of operation. These principles are mostly shaped in childhood and determine the threshold and intensity of the loneliness that is felt later on. In other words, the pain and suffering caused by loneliness depends on the genetic thermostat of the individual. In some genetic structures, the activation settings of the thermostat are low; and in some they are high. Therefore, the feeling of loneliness resulting from social isolation triggers a different response in every person. Even though clinical loneliness does depend on genetics to some extent, it is a curable. Around half of the factors that are behind feeling lonely depend on genes. A study about loneliness conducted on 8,683 twins showed that genetic treatments are 37% effective in treating this feeling. In summary, a departure from our social environment makes us go through different levels of pain depending on our genetic thermostat. Therefore, loneliness is felt in different forms in different natures.

The biological consequences of loneliness

Our body gives out different messages through pain and suffering. In the same way pain and suffering gives us messages of something going wrong in our body, extreme loneliness also has effects on the body, alerting us of something going wrong. Anxiety and physiological changes in our body give out alarming signals when our relationships weaken. These signals warn us that we have to change our attitude and actions in a way that will strengthen our relationships.

It has been observed that stress molecules (cortisol in saliva, adrenalin in urine) increase significantly in people who go through deep phases of loneliness. It was also observed that the body’s sympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for a “fight and escape” response, increased these activities, too. In people who are lonelier, the amygdala is triggered; this further heightens a person feeling of risk. These people are constantly on edge, their “flight” response activated. Therefore, people going through chronic loneliness have very low sleep quality. They wake up tired or even exhausted. They take less pleasure from activities that give rest and bring joy to other people. The degree of their satisfaction and happiness is low. They start losing the joy of living.

Another area of the body affected is the ventral striatum area, which is the award mechanism activated by factors such as food or money, as well as social feelings like sympathy. In a study conducted at the University of Chicago, the activity of the ventral striatum in 23 female university students feeling deep loneliness was measured with magnetic resonance scanning. The study showed that when these females were shown pictures of laughing and happy people, there was a significant decrease in their award mechanism compared to a normal person. So the deep feeling of loneliness locks the award mechanism of the brain, preventing the person from taking pleasure from life, thus leading the person to anxiety and sorrow.

Deep loneliness also affects the activity of the prefrontal cortex of the brain. This is the area of willpower; it brings a limit to activities triggered by instincts, such as eating or drinking. Field studies and surveys have shown that people feeling deep loneliness are more likely to have an unhealthy diet, increase their consumption of alcohol, and live a passive life style without exercising. Moreover, in the management control conducted in labs and that require prefrontal cortex activation, lonely people show little success. The prefrontal areas of these people do not respond fast enough, leading them to little success in these experiments.

Lonely people are more emotionally unbalanced when faced with stress. They find it very hard to control their emotions. They are more sensitive to negative hints when they are among people. They tend to interpret social interactions negatively rather than positively. In one study, the words that address the emotional state of a person were flashed on a computer screen with different colors. Later on, the colors of these words were asked to people feeling deep loneliness and to people who did not feel lonely. People feeling deep loneliness gave delayed answers about the colors of words such as “isolation, rejection, exclusion.” The people who did not feel lonely showed no such delay. This experiment shows that the human brain was created to give alarm signals in case of deep loneliness.

Social bonds and interactions enable a person to be open and accessible to other people. To make this openness and accessibility beneficial is both easy and difficult, simple and complex. People go through periods of wanting to be alone – with themselves or with God – just as they go through periods of desiring more social contact. A healthy person moves freely from state to state. To discover and control this oscillation between the two needs is to learn the best way to manage our lives.

How can deep loneliness be cured?

Since social isolation and loneliness affect people differently, a person should know the nature of his genetic thermostat and should make an effort to stay at his individual comfort zone. Every person has zones or intervals where they feel comfortable expressing their emotions, ideas and attitudes. Similarly, every person has different zones and thresholds for loneliness. Every person needs to understand their limits. Just as our fingerprints are unique, so, too, is the amount of solitude we need.

For those already suffering from loneliness, one of the best cures is a change in point of view. In other words, loneliness is cured by changing the person’s focus from the negative to the positive. People lead better lives when they adhere to the maxim, “Those who attend to the good side of everything contemplate the good. Those who contemplate the good enjoy life” (Nursi, The Letters, Epigrams – Seeds of Truth). People who understand and practice this in their lives have obtained the key to happiness.

A deep, personal relationship with faith is also a major cure for loneliness. Friends and earthly occupations only give comfort to a person until the grave. If the person who is isolated has very solid spirituality, and has acknowledged God as his real friend, he never undergoes a feeling of loneliness that would otherwise destroy his health. With faith and hope, the dungeon of loneliness becomes a school of imprisoned Prophet Joseph. Faith reminds him: “If you want a friend, God is sufficient. Indeed, if He is a friend to you, so is everything. If He is pleased with you, even if the whole world is displeased, it is of no consequence” (Nursi 23rd Letter, 21st Gleam). Sorrow, grief, sadness will not stop by you. Even if they do stop by you, they are bearable since they come from Him. They turn into worship by activated patience. Through faith, a person can achieve fulfillment in both this world and the next.

References

• Miller, G. 2011. “Why Loneliness Is Hazardous to Your Health.” Science. Vol. 331. 14 January, pp. 18-140. www.sciencemag.org
• Cacioppo, J. T. and Patrick W. 2008. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. W.W Norton Company. New York.

Ethics in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy

In Ibn Bajja’s philosophy, beings are created in order to achieve a goal. This goal, if achieved, will lead them to happiness. One who realizes this goal is, thus, happy.⁴ This goal is to know God and to worship God properly. Continuous pleasure can only be attained by the intellectual knowledge of the Eternal One.5 In Ibn Bajja’s own words:

“The one, who knows God (the only one God, with no partners) truly, knows that the greatest suffering is in God’s displeasure and being away from Him, and that the greatest happiness is in God’s pleasure and being close to Him. To be close to God can only be achieved through knowing ones own self.” ⁴

According to him, one should be considered a human to the extent that he or she differs from other beings (animals, plants, etc.). Among different kinds of animate beings, only humans can perform actions through free will.⁶ This is possible only through using their intellect, and controlling corporeal pleasures, instead of being controlled by them or banishing them totally.⁴ Actions are human in nature insomuch as they lead to this goal. For example, eating is an animal action if it is done to fulfill desire. On the other hand, it is a human action if it is done to preserve strength to achieve spiritual blessings.² When someone breaks a stone only because they were hurt by it, this is an animal action. If they do the same action in order to prevent somebody else from being hurt, this is a human action.⁶

Ibn Bajja believes that reaching happiness is not obtained by sudden leaps but through gradual steps.4 One should give priority to spiritual forms over corporeal forms, and if possible, should not socialize with pure materialists or those who mix their spiritual form with the corporeal one, except in some indispensable situations. Otherwise, as in the case of today’s materialistic world, one can easily be distracted from thinking about critical questions that would normally come to each and every individual’s mind, such as who we are, where we come from, where we are going , why we exist, and how to know about God. Secondly, one should go beyond the spiritual forms to reach the intellectual level, and socialize with those who also seek intellectual forms.³

Rule of the “solitary individual”

The “solitary individual” (tadbeer al-mutawahhed) holds an important place in Ibn Bajja’s thought. The term “tadbeer” or governance in Ibn Bajja’s philosophy means the actions done towards an end. On the other hand, al-Mutawahhed means a solitary individual who lives in a society, but who is different, intellectually, from his or her peers.1 They are, thus, alone in their thoughts within the society.⁴ Al-Mutawahhed is free and active when exposed to various influences, and they achieve the highest moral virtues: a balance between spiritual and material aspects of life.⁴ Unvirtuous people, on the other hand, are passive under various influences, and make decisions under the influence of their corporeal pleasures or animal desires, but not through using their intellect, which is what makes them human beings.

Ibn Bajja classifies cities before he gives a recipe to the solitary individual on how to achieve happiness. The cities are classified as stressing the moral values of the society. The perfect or ideal city is based on love. The citizens of this city do not quarrel at all. All views are true and all actions are right. They eat properly. Hence there is no need for doctors or judges. Ibn Bajja supports his claim with the question, “Cannot the healthy body rouse itself to resist diseases whose obscure causes come from outside?”6 On the other hand, if there is any contention in a city, it results in the need for a judge who can establish justice. Similarly, if people get harmful foods, they will need a doctor who has knowledge of treatments. So in an imperfect city, there is need for a doctor and a judge. As Ibn Bajja puts it: “The more a city needs them, the more honorable is the rank of both these classes.” ⁶

The imperfect city, being based on temporary corporeal pleasures, is not suitable for the metaphysical essence of humanity. Still, the imperfect city inherits a way to a virtuous society through solitary individuals.4 If one is in an imperfect city which does not supply any method to obtain knowledge, and is morally corrupted, and if there exists a perfect city, one should migrate to it; thus, they can gain knowledge.¹ If there is no such option, he or she should protect themself from the corruptions of their present society, and simultaneously build a social project which will provide happiness to individuals, and begin converting the society into a virtuous one.¹ The solitary individual is in a state of transition. During this state, they continue their personal education, and at the same time help convert an imperfect city into a perfect one.⁴

Contemplative seclusions

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, provides a great example of a “solitary individual.” Before he started receiving revelations, he would retreat to the mountain cave of Hira. He continued these retreats later on, especially during Ramadan, the month of fasting, when he went into seclusion for ten days, and spent time in prayer. This tradition, or itiqaf, is still being observed throughout the Muslim world. We can argue that these seclusions and contemplative retreats paved the way for him to transform a an “imperfect city” (Mecca), that was mired in ignorance, paganism, violence, and immorality, to a community of believers who exceled in ethics, learning, and peace; this was the perfect city of Medina. Yet, the Prophet was not just a solitary individual. He engaged with society in all possible ways during and before his prophethood, as a tradesman in caravans, as a social activist in a league dedicated to protect and support the distressed (Hilf al-Fudul), as a peacemaker among tribes, and as a husband and father.

Conclusion

Ibn Bajja’s philosophy on the governance of a solitary individual finds perfect embodiment in Prophetic practice. Personal education and social life are two processes that co-exist, whether in a perfect or an imperfect city, and the Prophetic practice of seclusion is a perfect way of linking the two. The construction of a perfect city joins these two processes after a period of personal education which leads to personal perfection. The solitary individual is always on the way: he or she is reading, contemplating, observing and acting constantly, and he or she does this independently of the status of the society within which they live.

References

1. Köroğlu, Burhan. 1996. “Ibn-i Bacce’nin Ahlâk ve Siyaset Düşüncesi,” (The Ethical and Political Thought of Avempace), Divan, 1, 45-46.
2. Sharif, M. M. 2004. “A History of Muslim Philosophy,” Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 3, 508-526,. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/index.html
3. Al-Allaf, M. 2003. “The Solitary Being (al-Mutawahhed): Definitions and Dimensions of Ibn Bajja (Avempace) Philosophy,” The Essence of Islamic Philosophy, ILC-Classic.
4. Aydınlı, Y. 1997. Ibn Bacce’nin Insan Görüşü, (The Human in the Thought of Ibn Bajja), Marmara Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ibn Bajja, http://plato.stanford.edu/
6. Dunlop, D. M. 1999. Ibn Bajjah’s Tadbiru’l-Mutawahhid (Rule of Solitary), Ibn Bajja Texts and Studies II, Islamic Philosophy (77), Strauss Offsetdruck.
7. Sahih Bukhari, 3, 33(260).
8. http://www.lastprophet.info/en/chronology/index.php

Indeed, the world has once again stepped into a zone of spiritual crisis—and this in itself is a historical recurrence. Before delving into the details of the topic, it would be more useful to expound on the meaning and nature of historical recurrences.

Yes, history is filled with recurrences. These recurrences are not identical to the past, but show some form of resemblance. If they had been identical, then lessons would have been learned and the same mistakes would not have been made. Thus we need to approach history not hoping to arrive at decisive conclusions, as if it would recur identically, but rather to draw wisdom from it, for we will encounter events that will resemble similar moments in the past. Let us now try and view our current crisis from this perspective.

It has often been observed that the periods in history when God burdened and pressured people the most have inspired humanity to sail towards new horizons. This is the case for individuals as well as communities. That is, just as when an individual’s burdens reaching their zenith indicates the moment of salvation is near, excessive social burdens have always refined the community and guided them in new directions. The following saintly words on the night’s darkness reflect what we are trying to say here: “Get as dark as you can. For the last phase of darkness is the moment light begins to shine forth.”

Furthermore, the macro-universe and the human being (the eminent sultan of the normo-universe) are so similar that they are almost identical. Due to this fact, let us start the discussion with the individual, by way of comparison. The relief and contentment experienced by individuals are sometimes followed by spiritual and conscientious expansions. In some other instances, the opposite may happen. Contraction, or qabdh in Islamic Sufi terminology, means being pressed or put under pressure. The handle of the sword that is interlocked with fingers and pressed is also called “qabdha.” Qabdh can also be defined as being held extremely tightly by an unknown hand. This term, indeed, has been added to Sufi terminology with this particular connotation.

The state of contraction may sometimes originate from certain individual sins, or from individual heedlessness. At first, a person unleashes himself into an effervescent climate, and lives, for some time, in a light-headed state. Immediately after, as a form of punishment, a person becomes exposed to contraction. Maybe, it is the soul that wishes to experience this state, for the redundancy of comfort and lethargy annoys the soul. Consequently, the soul often gets annoyed by the exuberance of the material world, because it wishes to be, and to stay, in a state of spiritual alertness and vibrancy regarding its longing for eternity.

In this regard, contraction results when a person lets go of himself, and is consequently cautioned by the Hand of Power. God exposes a person to contraction in order for that person to re-direct themself to Him. This is very similar to when a mother lightly slaps her child to prevent her baby from doing something wrong, or going somewhere bad, and then embraces her baby mercifully and lovingly.

In such a state, roads narrow and do not give way; causes gradually start to vanish. Here, just at this moment, one removes all causes from his memory and directs himself to the One who holds all causes in His Mighty Hand. Essentially, the aim of the Almighty is to direct a person to Himself. In these cases, if a person comprehends the real cause of what befell him, and returns to the Almighty, it means that the goal has been achieved. However, reaching this point requires an astute consciousness and perception to comprehend the fact that no single incident in the universe occurs due to blind or arbitrary coincidence. In his commentary on the Qur’an, Nursi portrays the position of two people who have fallen into a well in light of the current issue: One of the two is deprived of his ability to inquire about the hidden aspect of matters. The other person is a man of wisdom. And through the window of wisdom, this second man speaks to himself as follows (Eighth Word):

“These matters do not actually seem to be coincidental. A lion suddenly starts chasing me while I have been running in the desert; then I fall into a well and hold a tree; two mice, a black one and a white one, on the root of the tree have been gnawing at the tree; and, a dragon down below has been waiting for the moment of my fall, with a mouth wide open. Up above, the lion threatens me with his scary behavior. Standing shoulder to shoulder, these incidents can in no way take place coincidentally or by chance. Apparently, all these have been preplanned by Someone who knows me; and all these are represented through my existence.”

You see, every person who has experienced the state of contraction should view incidents in a similar way, and say to themselves: “all these incidents embracing me so tightly are directed by a superior might exceeding myself, and I am a mere extra in this play.” Of course, this should not be considered sufficient, and right away, one should take refuge in the sovereignty of the One who holds the entirety of existence in His Holy Hand.

This situation is valid for communities, too. A community is sometimes held and pressed by an iron claw, and this can be said to be that community’s contraction . Reasons for such contraction include living in idleness, being unaware of their return to Him, knocking on the wrong doors, or seeking cures in the wrong places.

Today, we can see, through the contraction of individuals and communities, that history repeats itself. This repetition has shown that troubles and turmoil can mark the beginnings of new exaltations. The crisis we are experiencing today shall become a bridge to new energy and exuberance. Indeed, is it not our mission to prepare a new era of exaltation for humanity?

Cultural differences have a potential to trigger conflicts at all levels, and the response each society gives to these conflicts depend on what they hold most dear as a foundational norm: independent existence of individuals or social interdependence. This calls for awareness in differences and discussion to benefit from cultural diversity.

Michael was having a problem with his neighbor next door. He decided to seek advice from his coworkers on the issue. Paul suggested that he express the problem openly right away, and, if that wouldn’t help, to take the neighbor to the court. Akihiro, on the other hand, warned him not to get too serious, and recommended him to write a letter which talks about their good memories in the past and how pleasant their neighborhood was. The backup plan in this case would be to invite a mutually respected neighbor of theirs to mediate the situation.

Of course, Michael has many other options to address the given problem. Yet, it is interesting to note the differences between the suggestions of the two coworkers. One party is focused on the issue per se and pursues a direct approach; whereas the other is concerned about the relationship and follows indirect/accommodating means to handle the situation. This article is intended to provide a better understanding of these two main approaches in conflicting situations. Since the responses to unease are generally situational, we may not judge whether any of the resolution efforts are good or bad, but rather, look closely on their rationale respectively.

Cultures differ on various aspects of life. Naturally, the approach of their members to conflict will also vary depending on the value they place on issues of interest and dominant cultural characteristics. A close examination of these features in a given society will give an idea on how its members would respond to conflicting situations in general. Given the growing interconnectedness of societies today, such knowledge of cultural tendencies might help in the development of strategies for conflict resolution and prevention.

Societies that promote independent existence of individuals are referred to as individualistic, and those which assume a great deal of social interdependence are grouped as collectivistic cultures.¹ Prior to discussing responses to conflict in these two types of cultures, it may be better to highlight some examples of their interpretations which will provide hints about their foundational norms.

He who hesitates is lost. (American expression)

Strike while the iron is hot. (American expression)

More haste, less speed. (Chinese expression)

A deliberate inaction is better than a blind action. (Chinese expression)

Different cultures may have different viewpoints about the same issue. This affects the responses of their members and the methods they favor in various situations. Existing theories in social sciences, which generally reflect social values of individualism and autonomy, may be inadequate in societies that do not share the same values and foundational norms, and vice versa. Such a cross-cultural analysis requires an understanding of the prevalent cultural values and norms in a given society.¹ These shared values, through which cultures develop and continue, are communicated in a variety of ways. One technique that commonly appears is the use of proverbs or sayings, and such quotes throughout the commentary will provide a general idea about some differing characteristics of these two cultural approaches.

Rather than criticizing or promoting any specific cultural aspect, this piece aims to discuss another dimension of multicultural approach to serve to break the stereotyped images (if any) about different cultures, and to help accept everybody as they are in a world of cultural diversity. Once we have a broad picture, we will further look into how interpersonal conflict is handled, and conclude with some overarching suggestions to foster mutual understanding in cases of unease.

Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. (American expression)

If you congregate, you live. If you scatter, you die. (Korean proverb)

One who leaves the herd, gets snatched by the wolf. (Turkish proverb)

One palm makes no applause. (Chinese proverb)

Two widely held worldviews have become evident in the cross-cultural literature as variables on which most cultures vary: individualism which objectifies the self, and collectivism which submerges the self to emphasize the group. A middle course in the de bate between those who claim the primacy of society and those who emphasize the primal significance of the individual would state that there is no society without an individual; and also that no individual can survive without society.² These concepts do not necessarily form opposite poles and may coexist due to the enormous intercultural mix, yet one approach may still have dominance to the other in a given culture.³

“The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America.” (Marilyn vos Savant)

“It is hard to be an individual in Japan.” (Haruki Murakami)

In individualistic societies, a person is an autonomous entity defined by a somewhat distinctive set of attributes, qualities, or processes; and these internal attributes determine the behavior. Yet, in collectivistic societies, a person is an interdependent entity who is part of the encompassing social relationships. This is not to say that a person in such a society lacks unique attributes, but rather that these are not primary forces that guide the behavior. In such societies, behavior is a consequence of being responsive to others and origins of behaviors are relationships and social harmony.³

He who converses not knows nothing. (English proverb)

He, who knows, does not speak. He, who speaks, does not know. (Lao Tzu)

In Western cultures, a highly verbal individual is perceived more positively, whereas in Eastern cultures perceptions for highly verbal individuals may not be that positive. Traditionally, communication apprehension has been attributed to a weak sense of identity and is viewed as a deficiency; but on the contrary, this reticence may be due to politeness or a tendency to preserve harmony in collectivistic cultures, depending on the social context.

Stand up for your own rights. (American expression)

Unless you blow your own horn, who will? (American expression)

Once you preach, the point is gone. (Zen phrase)

Mature rice plants bow down lower. (Korean expression)

According to individualistic point of view, communicators can get things done by being assertive. On the other hand, from the collectivistic standpoint, people are expected to preserve group identity and may be discouraged from asserting themselves as individuals. Therefore, it will not be a true assumption to attribute this lack of assertiveness to some negative traits such as low self-esteem, shyness, disinterest, or ignorance.³

Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution

“The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions.” (Nhat Hanh)

Keeping all the above examples in mind, now let’s briefly compare and contrast responses to conflict in individualistic and collectivistic societies:

Since individuals’ self-articulated interests are of utmost importance, individualistic perspective frames conflict as the divergence of interests or issues, which limits the focus of solution efforts solely to reconciling the differences in interests between parties. Yet in collectivistic cultures, social harmony is a critical aspiration and community involvement is likely even in interpersonal matters. Then, a deeper and wider analysis that will address the concerns of both types of approaches should better view conflict as a situation and place the situation to the heart of any resolution endeavor.¹

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” (Joseph Conrad)

The one who raises his/her voice has already lost. (Japanese proverb)

Members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct/dominating/prompt communication styles, since they deem open discussion as the best way to deal with their interpersonal problems. On the other hand, individuals in interdependent societies are less likely to “express negative emotions (such as anger) to confront each other, and to use verbal aggressiveness and open discussion in conflict situations. They may avoid reactions to their relational problems that can potentially cause further conflict”. Among them, the stress is not so much upon the individual and his/her interests, but on the maintenance of the collectivity and the continuation of harmonious relationships; conflict is viewed as damaging to social fabric and relational harmony, so it should be avoided as much as possible. This naturally leads to the adoption of high compromising and avoiding behaviors and a relatively low preference for competing and assertive postures which emphasize the value they place on maintaining social harmony rather than personal interests in conflict interactions.³

“Peace is not absence of conflict; it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” (Ronald Reagan)

There is a natural tendency to avoid conflicts as much as possible. While it is a major strategy to preserve harmonious relationships in Eastern cultures, Western societies may view accommodation efforts as giving up critical values and personal rights. Furthermore, according to the Western approach, people will prefer to avoid conflict only if their stake in an issue is not high enough to get involved, whereas collectivist cultures actually utilize it as a social remedy.³

In collectivistic societies, “understanding is seen not as the result of putting meaning into words, but rather as the greater understanding of shared perspective, expectations, and intimacy”, and avoidance is utilized as a strategy to handle the conflict. Besides expressing the discomfort indirectly/nonverbally in a polite and educating way, non-confrontational communication modes in problematic situations include, but are not limited to: “(a) the use of management to prevent a conflict before it happens, (b) expression of conflict emotions like anger or frustration by non-communication, such as ignorance or silence, (c) pretense of being harmonious in peoples’ presence, even though parties are actually avoiding each other, (d) management of conflict using a third party, (e) tendency of directing accusations against oneself.”³

Cultural differences in third party intervention

“The Believers are but brothers; so make peace and reconciliation between your brothers… ”⁴

How, when, and why a third party interferes has been the central focus of conflict resolution studies. Models on interpersonal conflict that assume a great deal of individual autonomy and privacy in interpersonal matters hardly speak about engaging one’s social network into a conflict, however interpersonal conflict intervention in a collectivistic setting will not take place only between contending individuals and the intervener, but is likely to engage other entities (e.g. extended family members) almost in any given conflict. This involvement of others, with the purpose of securing, improving or sustaining a resolution, can be added strength for conflict intervention and resolution.¹

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” (Paulo Freire)

Western literature on interpersonal conflict intervention generally undermines the adjustment of the involvement style depending on the stage of the disagreement. However in collectivistic societies, “third parties are expected to function in a reconciliatory mode, unless clear injustice or deviance takes place. In this case, third parties should get actively involved in restoring justice and eliminating deviance before returning to the reconciliatory role.” Consultation may be utilized “when relationship issues (perception and attitudes) are not suitable for mediation, and to help parties clarify their underlying needs (security, or identity for example) and interests tied to such needs. Mediation, on the other hand, aims at negotiating certain substantive issues, based on a clear understanding of relationship issues and parties’ own needs and interests.”¹

Adhering to the common good while not favoring any of the parties has good intentions, yet the mediator may face difficulties in modern diverse societies, where notions of common good may be too diverse and vague; focus being on the individual. Material resources are often the codes used, thus legal procedures are vital parts of the resolution in these societies, and mediators are expected to be professionals who are knowledgeable of legal procedures. Thus, actions in a resolution process are task-oriented. Conversely in collectivistic societies, where the main focus is on social harmony and social norms/values form the basis of a solution, mediators are generally seniors (in terms of age or hierarchy) who are knowledgeable of cultural norms. Some codes mainly used by interveners in these cultures include honor, dignity, unity, future of the next generations, religious values, and tradition of forgiveness.^1,5

Speaking of religion and its role in conflict, one’s voluntary sacrifice from his/her rights in some conflicting situations, repelling evil with what is better,⁶ and forgiveness has been encouraged for thousands of years by major world religions.⁷ “Adherents of these religions have claimed that forgiveness yields numerous emotional and spiritual benefits, and can dramatically transform one’s life.”⁸ Hence, it may be useful to explore their resources, which are rich with conflict intervention principles, values and models, in a way that would prepare them for contemporary practice. For instance, it is stated that reconciling a dispute between two parties is a charity,9 and that “kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury.”¹⁰

The most beneficial approach for the involved parties in a conflict situation would be an attempt to address fully the concerns of both parties and to find mutually satisfactory solutions to the cause of the conflict. This collaborative approach is of utmost importance and most viable, particularly when the issues are critical and maintaining an ongoing relationship is important. For an effective assistance, third parties involved in mediation processes should carefully study the needs and values of contending parties and have cultural awareness in order to provide mutually satisfactory resolution options regardless of the society they operate.

Considering that disagreements could be resolved much easily when parties are aware of corresponding needs/values and interests/concerns, getting to know one another would be an important basis for any resolution endeavor. Therefore, the more we exchange ideas without prejudice, the more we’ll understand each other. Although some disagreements yield positive outcomes and new ideas, intense conflicts generally drain energy and resources. Hence, it is heartening to observe that peace studies such as conflict resolution are blossoming, despite some scholars expecting a “clash of civilizations” and some claiming that we are at the “end of history.” Contrary to the arguments that define life as a series of struggles for limited resources, this relatively new field of social sciences will help humanity make the best out of its potential and reach a better state of living. Comprehensive resolutions which are globally applicable to disagreements in-between individuals, organizations, or nations overall, call for good deeds, positive motives, and pure intentions without self-interest. Tolerance, forgiveness, altruism, compassion, submission to ethical/moral codes, fairness, openness of hearts and minds, and welcoming people as they encompass some of the universal means to cure conflicts at various levels.

References

1. Abdalla, Amr. 2000. “Principles of Islamic Interpersonal Conflict Intervention: A Search within Islam and Western Literature.” Journal of Law & Religion 15, no. 1. 151-184.

2. Nasr, Seyyed H. 2002. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

3. Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

4. Qur’an, 49:10.

5. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions.” Peace and Change 21, no. 1. 22-40.

6. Qur’an, 41:34.

7. For some of the Qur’anic verses on interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation not mentioned in the text, the reader may refer to 2:280; 3:134, 4:128, 135, 149; 24:22; 25:63; and 42:37, 40, 43.

8. McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen. 2000. Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Bukhari, Sulh, 11; Muslim, Zakat, 52.

10. Qur’an, 2:263.

Of all the faculties and senses that man is endowed with, moderation is one of the most essential virtues. Moderation concerns all people within society, and can become an unattainable virtue unless all members of society have gained a sufficient level of straightforwardness in their thoughts and actions. That straightness of conduct can only be sustained if a sufficient number of people in that society understand, desire and practice the virtue of moderation.

John B. Watson and his colleague conducted an experiment if an emotion could be generalized from one subject to another subject similar to the first. He targeted a baby, called Little Albert, who had no fear of small furry animals like white rats at that time. To carry out their hypothesis, Watson and colleague presented a white rat for Little Albert to play with. But after a while, the researchers made a very loud disturbing noise whenever Little Albert attempted at reaching for the white rat. After several times the researchers paired the loud noise with Little Albert’s attempts at reaching that white rat, a time came to the point where Little Albert was scared of the animal on its own—without the loud sound. From that on, Little Albert generalized his fear to anything furry, including non-white rabbits and dogs. (Watson & Rayner, 1920)

From early years of childhood, we have directly and indirectly learnt how an excess and shortage of anything could be undesirable. No matter who an individual is or where he or she comes from, that individual knows that eating too much can cause a bloated feeling, eating too less can harm health, talking too much could hurt others, and so does not talking at all. Moderation is such a universal virtue that every individual from every religion, ethnicity, and background knows that a life lived in moderation always reaps the most benefits.

Not just on trivial daily matters, moderation can address any issue that has significant relations to human life. Moderation is related to healthy lifestyles, satisfactory life outcomes, healthy relationships, and many more. But one aspect of humankind that is faced everyday—yet it seems to be ignored most of the time—is the mindset, way of thinking, or the cognition. We can have times when there is a “shortage” of the mindset, but more problematic is the instances when some individuals choose to adopt an extreme way of thinking.

Consider the case of Little Albert above, because of one tragedy Little Albert generalized his feelings and fear that anything furry was scary. Probably because that white furry rat seemed to produce such a loud scary noise, Little Albert thought, “so, anything furry MUST be scary too…” This is one example where way of thinking can be extreme. Moderation does not seek to moderate this extreme way of thinking, rather it seeks to moderate way of thinking generally so it is not as extreme.

How moderation is related to prejudice

As mentioned above, moderation can address many issues, and this includes prejudice. Prejudice is defined as the way we see others—the social orientation that is based on a membership of a particular group (Brown, 2010). To understand prejudice, one has to note that prejudice comes from a generalized attribution or characterization (or what is commonly known as a stereotype). Prejudice is the emotional aspect of stereotypical thinking. Like Little Albert, the infant generalized his prejudice to anything furry, and although Albert’s reaction to those furry objects was dramatic, our modern prejudicial reaction is usually more subtle and hidden.

In relation to the issue of prejudice, moderation is synonymized to being fair-minded—a way of thinking that employs the middle point between two extremes. Prejudice is, in its basic form, a way of thinking that is located in one extreme. The extremity comes from the aspect of generalization of prejudicial mindset in its beholder’s way of thinking. But where do these thoughts come from? People’s tendency to generalize their observation of a trait of a person to his or her group members always comes from the external sources.

One study supported the notion that people obtain prejudicial thinking from external sources (Aboud, 1976). The research method involved asking participants to seek information on three fictitious groups. Prior to seeking information, the participants were shown statistics of certain traits related to these groups. This was done to “set” the minds of the participants on the traits that were more likely to be shown by the members of these groups. Consequently, when seeking information on the groups after shown the statistics of the groups, the participants were more likely to “confirm” what they had been told from the statistics, allowing a generalization to occur in their mindset.

Availability heuristics and their role in prejudicial thinking

Why do humans generalize more than they should, or at all? Perhaps it is because of the information they can readily and superficially obtain from the target of their prejudicial thinking. Stereotypes are always something people can see directly, such as weight, skin color, and intelligence shown through behavior and many other characteristics. These sets of readily available information seem to be more important because there is one type of heuristics, availability heuristics that is present in the human mind to help them judge on frequency or probability (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).

To understand heuristics, consider the two images below that we come across very often. How do you know which gender is which symbol? The existence of heuristics allows us to manage this world in a more simplified and helpful way. Society uses symbols that represent certain group of people to give certain information. No matter where we are, our brain is integrated with the understanding that “skirts” are something only women would wear—it is how, by using that heuristic, we know that the first symbol tells us that it is a women’s place, or belongs to women, or can only be used by women—depending on where we see the symbol.

Heuristics are tools to help people make a cognitive decision on something such as deciding who someone is, if he or she is a righteous person, or what leads to a particular event, or how a certain event happens. Availability heuristics is the tool used to make a judgment when it comes to the frequency of probability that something occurs to that particular target. For example, one may judge the traits of people in community A, after seeing the behavior of a few members of community A. Availability heuristics help people simplify judgment to the most simplified information they can get in mind, and that information can come from various sources, such as a personal experience like the one in the Little Albert case, and others like the statistics given in the study described above.

Availability heuristics can be useful in some situations, such as estimating voting behavior in an election period, or predicting divorce cases for a particular year, but sometimes it has a negative consequence. Prejudice partly comes from the use of availability heuristics and blind “compliance” to such judgment. In this case, availability heuristics are a form of excess of the use of limited information offered to the human mind prior to judgment because blind belief to such heuristics can lead them to generalize. This is an extreme way of thinking that would go against the very nature of moderation itself.

Labeling and availability heuristics

Availability heuristics can be so powerful that sometimes people do not even realize that it is affecting their way of thinking. This is due to the excess use of labeling to simplify and categorize objects. Labeling affects human judgment and interpretation toward something or someone (Jussim, Nelson, Manis, & Soffin, 1995). Labeling is one of the sources of availability heuristics because labeling comes from the traits of physical attributes that people see from the individuals that they label. For example, individuals are labeled as doctors after they are seen wearing a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck, or a man is labeled as dangerous when walking in the dark with a hooded jumper on. Once labeling happens, individuals who conform to the traits and physical attributes that resemble the labels are stereotyped and these stereotypes become the readily available information to serve as a tool to form availability heuristics.

Labeling is not all inaccurate, but the negative consequence of labeling happens because people are too focused on the external traits of a target of the label. People seem to readily judge that a person in a white coat is a doctor, or that a man who has a hood on while walking in the dark is dangerous. These are all the external qualities of the person in a white coat and the man with a hood that people focus on to make a judgment, and eventually they have prejudicial thinking against these targets.

When discussing the topic of faith, Benjamin Franklin said, “Faith is confirmed by the heart, confessed by the tongue, and acted upon by the body.” This definition of faith is in parallel with the definition given by various religions. It emphasizes the importance of both external (confessing and acting upon) and internal aspects (believing) of spirituality. One cannot have one aspect without the other. Moderation involves professing your faith internally, such as believing and keeping your motivation, and externally, such as taking care of your appearance in line with your faith, and being concerned about what you say and do. This means that you do not just focus on either one aspect alone, but prove your stand by maintaining your faith, internally and externally.

In relation to prejudice, labeling happens due to focusing more on the external aspects of traits, like the group members’ appearance, behavior, and even intelligence (as it can be seen from their way of thinking and speaking). But we often neglect to remember that there are interior aspects of those individuals—the aspects that are dismissed from the factors of being labeled. These interior aspects can be different across individuals, thus labels alone could not make an entirely accurate judgment on an individual.

Conceptual frameworks of the relationship between moderation and prejudice

As discussed, prejudice comes from many factors that are not in line with the concept of moderation and this can be prevented by allowing the right way of thinking to be our habit. Moderation is a middle pathway to prevent prejudice. One way to do so is by understanding that while the outside of a person can tell something about him or her, the inside parts can be important too. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework on how moderation can address prejudicial thinking.

Figure 1 shows a continuum of the way of thinking with moderation in the middle and “indifference” and “prejudicial thinking” on each extreme end. Prejudicial thinking, in one extreme, focuses only on the external aspects of a group of people, by which the aspects are used to make a judgment if the group is “good” or “bad.” These judgments are then used to make a generalization. On the other hand, indifference is shown when people have a neutral attitude; too much of it that they do not care about what is happening around them.

Moderation is located in the middle. It is neither prejudicial nor indifferent. People with a moderate way of thinking consider both the external and internal qualities of individuals to make a fair judgment. Each judgment is different across individuals because he or she knows that even if an individual belongs to a certain group, that individual does not have to be the same as the other members of that group. People with a moderate way of thinking know that tolerance needs to be exercised whenever needed, without any unfairness to any individuals who belong to a certain group of people.

Conclusion and a suggestion

When making a judgment or decision on a target’s attribution, it is important to examine the extent to which heuristics or the person’s dependence on readily available information—also known as availability heuristics—affects their judgment. Heuristics can be useful to help people organize, manage, and simplify their thoughts, but it should be supervised so that it is only used in moderate levels. Whenever one feels the need to make a quick judgment, he or she should break it by “educating” the self. Educating the self in its simplest form can be to ask, “What if I am judged that way? Would I like it?” By educating yourself, you make a psychological and mental reminder that to quickly judge means to unfairly treat that individual, which is something you would not want happen to you.

Another way to hinder the potential formation of prejudice is to empathize. By putting yourself in the target’s own shoes, you will be able to see how unfair stereotypes can be to a particular individual. Self-serving bias is a social cognitive error in which you are more likely to view positive events as a result of your own doing and negative events as the consequence of an external factor (Miller & Ross, 1975). This is viewed by psychologists as an error in thinking about other people, but interestingly, this can actually help in reducing prejudice. Prejudice can occur because you fail to attribute a person’s behavior or trait fairly, because he or she is simply another person you cannot relate to. Therefore, by empathizing with a person, you would more likely start to view that behavior through your own lens. By doing that, “self-serving bias” can begin and that is equipped with the ability to also consider your own internal attributes. Therefore, there will be a balance between focusing on internal aspects because it is you, and focusing on external aspects, because it is others.

Moderation is indeed a virtue that can help us develop and grow as a well-adjusting human being. By employing moderation in every aspect of our lives, we can see that moderation can address almost any issue, including prejudice. Moderation is the middle and the most proper pathway of thinking.

Taufik Mohammad, PhD, is a senior lecturer in Universiti Sains Malaysia.

References

• Aboud, F. E. 1976. The effect of stereotype generalization on information seeking. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science , 8, 178-188.
• Brown, R. 2010. Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Jussim, L., Nelson, T. E., Manis, M., & Soffin, S. 1995. Prejudice, stereotypes, and labeling effects: Sources of bias in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 228-246.
• Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. 1975. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207-232.
• Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. 1920. Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal

Your essence is even loftier than angels.
Hidden in you are spheres and compacted globes
Mehmed Akif

The human is the main subject of every philosophical and scientific view. Neither any philosophy nor any science can be developed without taking human beings into consideration. With both physical and metaphysical sides, the human being is the ultimate subject of all sciences, and all avenues of investigation can be evaluated in relation to their significance for human dignity.

Sciences explore different human qualities, through the various branches, in books that multiply continuously, overflow, and diffuse light all over.

The body shape and function of the human is so perfectly adjusted that it marks an unbelievably ideal structure. Whichever organ we may study, it is impossible not to feel admiration before its anatomy.

And the depth of the inner world of a person has such rich potential to develop, and the potential to keep developing dimensions within; a complicated brain and a spirit with an elusive essence that evades material measure; and then the perfectly harmonious relation of these two phenomena-the physical and the spiritual together. . . mysterious beings… Within everything are meanings crystallized from the hues in the corona of that magnificent artwork-the human and her dignity.

Here, we will neither touch on this magnificent corporeality, nor delve into the inner dimensions of an individual we can hardly sense in any event. Instead, we are going to mention a few potentials and abilities that dignify the human.

The human is a difficult creature to understand in all qualities. The complexities begin from the day of we come into this world and continue. Except for the human, every creature comes to this world as if already trained about life. As for human beings, in spite of being the most magnificent and esteemed creatures, we are born devoid of all these inherent gifts and functions necessary for life. Everything that goes beyond the mechanical order of physicality develops in a person thanks to reason, mind, will, freedom, sense, and introspection. Thus, a person maintains the unity of inner and outer reality, and only in this way does an individual attain selfhood.

These potentialities, which exist in all human beings as an intention and a herald of being a great figure in the future, can only flourish through training and education. Discovering dignity requires introspection and self-criticism. Leaving a person alone to whatever whims come along means leaving one in a most miserable condition. A seed or group of seeds needs to be cultivated to grow into the most perfect thing it is intended to be. As the lion comes to the world with the paw it needs, and the cattle with horns, a person arrives in the world needing to cultivate all means to preserve one’s self, to flourish, and to work together toward mutual dignity.

A person should use his insight and intellect, will and reason and then invent things to obtain what is beneficial and avoid what is harmful. Thus she establishes both an individual and social world, where she can find serenity. And then persons can pass to future generations the works they formed and the values they established, so that dignity can be preserved in both heart and mind.

It is natural for a person to do these things, because we are not concerned with the very moment only. Past and future are always vivid along with the present and are pieces of any existent reality. For this reason, even though those who have contributed to the development of thought and science throughout history could not personally see the fruits of their efforts, they did not feel languor and give up working. They worked and strived for humanity, leaving an immense heritage in the name of knowledge and culture. If it weren’t so, we would neither be able to talk about science nor civilization on earth.

In addition to sciences, accumulation of knowledge, and heritage of civilization, human dignity, human perfection and virtue are the fruit of human efforts again. Developing potentialities, regulating human behavior, channeling people to good and virtuous paths are the results of human effort. All through history, one generation after another inherited the refined manners and quest for dignity of the previous generation and took it as a duty to improve it. In this respect, the greatest gift the former generations presented to the latter was teaching good manners and edification of human dignity! Edification prevents a person from being diverted from human dignity due to base inclinations. By setting the frame of acts and activities, edification prevents any individual from running wild and degenerating. At the same time, edification helps develop the potentialities every human comes equipped. Edification helps the capabilities hidden in human spirit to be unearthed and to flourish.

There are always seeds of the good and beautiful in us; seeds of the bad and ugliness are non-existent. Even feelings like lust, rage, and revenge in a way can be seen as sprouts for indirect beautiful outcomes. However, one thing should not be forgotten: that as the beauty of everything positive or negative is the result of some edification, true human dignity depends on edification again. We need edification to make our reason, will, and introspection to utilize all their functions. Edification dignifies humanity above animal existence. Edification allows us a degree of autonomy before nature, which operates according to rules of causality. Through edification, the human can be dignified by being attached to the Absolute, Free, and Sovereign One. This distinguishing trait is developed through being a rational creature possessing will and introspection.

Reason, as defined in philosophy, is to be able to derive particularities from general conditions by framing laws and principles. So it is this power of reasoning that underlies the basis of the difference between beast and human. Reason is the prime faculty that makes us human; however, it is not given in its perfected form and matured condition, but in a simple and potential state. A person has to elaborate what makes us different from animals and make this potential flourish. When reason becomes a corridor between the inner and outer worlds, it gains a totally different identity. If we call this a combination of finding oneself and being found, then the conscience plays the role of a “reason” which makes our judgments of deeds and shows us which way to act. The ultimate aim and the loftiest ideal of reason-the ultimate source of human dignity-is coming to knowledge of the Divine. The reason or mind which has come to know God attains wisdom and undertakes conscientious responsibilities that promote the dignity of all.

One of the qualities that make a person human is freedom; in other words, we have the capacity to decide our own acts. We possess an active reason. We have “autonomy.” This way, a person supersedes the rest of creation, living or non-living; this brings us not only the ability to control our acts, but accountability for them. It is not possible to explain morality and immorality without taking freedom and human will into consideration. Sheer materialist and positivist accounts of human beings, which see us as machines and deny free will, lead to superficial and banal conclusions.

So it seems that we are obliged to accept that each person has a free and independent side, namely, there is a dimension which is not determined by laws in nature and which constitutes a basis for morality. Ultimately, this freedom results from being the addressee of a divine authority, leads to the need to carry out the responsibilities that correspond to this dignified position, which means discerning right from wrong based on both extrinsic and intrinsic reasoning.

This dignity merges cognitions about the outer world with introspection. A meaningful, dignified life is like a ray of light that provides its own verification. Dignity opens inlets to the beyond of the realm of possibility. It is as if one feels an ascent (“miraj”) from the dimensions of the present space. Such an ascension-depending on the circulation of the mind, stability of the will, and soundness of contemplation-is possible for every individual. Each of us takes a share from this dignity according to the capacity of the bowl in our hands and the heavenly drink it contains.

And further beyond, there is such a point, which the most perfected figures, the most magnificent wills, and those of deepest introspection and spiritual delight reach: it is the contemplation of the matchless beauty of our magnificent Creator who makes us feel His being beyond our own, makes us feel His Will beyond ours and who lets us enjoy this bliss.

For centuries, generations have been alien and indifferent to this lofty journey. Making people conscious of their dignified essence, letting reason flourish and vitalizing the will, purifying human feelings and maintaining our contact with the rest of creation: this is a duty upon our eminent educators.

Here I address once more those who are responsible for training the new generations. Do not delay guiding them to the values that render us truly human. That is our responsibility before history: to promote the dignity that keeps us from destroying each other.