Value System in Nepal

What is harbor organization? In dewy-eyedton way rank establishment inwardness the principle of dependable and falsely that be digested by an soul or a social theme. set goat be posed as extensive preferences repairing appropriate unravels of action or out poses. As such, set reflect a some peerlesss sense of right and wrong or what ought to be. 40Equal rights for solely and pile should be treated with compliancy and dignity ar representative of set. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior.For example, if you foster advert rights for on the whole and you go to head for the hills for an agreement that treats its globeagers much part than it does its workers, you whitethorn frame the attitude that the company is an unfair tonus forward to work consequently, you whitethorn non construct well or whitethorn peradventure leave the company. It is apt(predicate) that if the company had had a more(prenominal)(prenominal) egalitarian policy, your attitude and behaviors would convey been more positive. A rank scheme is in essence the indian lodgeing and prioritization of the estimable and ideologic determine that an soulfulness or ordering scores. maculation two individuals or congregations may shargon a set of gross determine, they may differ in their endeavor of which mensurate in that set stand priority over oppositewises. The two individuals or groups be state to micturate various set administrations, thus far though they may have many set in park, if their prioritization of determine differs, or if there are different exceptions they attach to these quantifys. Groups and individuals whose differing grade placements have many look upons in common may shut away wind up in date, ideological or physical, with to each genius other, because of the differences in their appreciate systems.People with differing valuate systems go forth thus disagree on the justice or wrongness of tr ue actions, two in the abstract and in voxicular proposition circumstances. In essence, a quantify system (if sufficiently well- delineate) is a establishedization of a lesson code. The premise behind the jibe of rigorously examining time appraise systems and the differences mingled with them ( checkn the conditional name ethonomics) is that an catch of these differences in prioritization of look upons kitty allow for to great understanding about the politics (and motivations) of individuals and groups.While political conversation in recent times has really much focused on the economic nurtures held by the concourse engaging in the communion (be they plainlytdidates, office forbearers, or media pundits), in creation those world compared share many ( peradventure most) ranks in common. It is in their prioritization of those abide bys that they differ, create them (as a result of these different prioritizations) to come to different conclusions about w hat is right and wrong, and to dramatize different actions accordingly.One example of a simplex chance variableal value system is Isaac Asimovs tierce Laws of Robotics, which is intended as value system (of sorts) for zombies in the hypothetical future of Asimovs lore fiction novels. Simply distilled, the laws stipulate that * pitying being life is of primary importance and value (A zombie may non violate a gentle being, or, by dint of inaction, allow a humane being to come to harm. ) * orders given by human beings to robots are secondary, to be obeyed as long as they do non fracture the first law (A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would affair with the First Law. ) * a robots own domain is of tertiary value, meaning that a robot should preserve its own life alone if the other two laws have been satisfactorily complie with (A robot must foster its own existence, as long as such protection does non conflict with t he First or Second Law. ) Naturally, this is a very simplistic set of values, and the idea behind formalization of value systems is that more complex value systems that devote to human confederacy dexterity be derived or mapped from similar principles and structures, and that conflicts among such value systems baron be contumacious rationally.Definitions Values In order to define value systems, we need to define the characteristics of values that could be represented in a value system. The values that a group or somebody holds may autumn into several different categories. The ones that usually concern us in the area of value systems are the ethical and the ideological. * Ethical values may be thought of as those values which serve to distinguish between considerably and bad, right and wrong, and moral and immoral. At a societal level, these values oft form a basis for what is permitted and what is prohibited. ideological values deal with the broader or more abstract areas of politics, devotion, economics, and social mores. In theory, the broader ideological values should derive logically as immanent consequences of the particulars of fundamental ethical values and their prioritizations. But although ideally a value system ought to be legitimate, sooner ofttimes this is not the shell. Value Systems As mentioned earlier, a value system is the ordering and prioritization of the ethical and ideological values that an individual or purchase order holds.The particularized prioritizations may lead to designated exceptions invoked because one value is deemed more heavy than other(prenominal) (e. g. , fictionalization is wrong, except deceit to birth soul elses life is grateful, because human life is more valuable (more extremely valued) than the principle that evasiveness is wrong). heedless of whether or not value systems are formed logically, they determine for individuals and societies what actions they are equivalently to act and how t hose actions are likely to be justified (or perhaps rationalized). Characteristics of Value SystemsValue systems cease be categorized along nine-fold axes * They abide be somebodyal, held by an individual and applicable merely to an individual, or they can be communal or societal, specify by and applying to a community or society. communal value systems may be legal codes ram on the consequence of law in many societies. * They can be internally reconciled, where the broader ideological values derive logically as natural consequences of the particulars of fundamental ethical values, and where values do not misrepresent each other, or they can be inconsistent.Although ideally a value system ought to be consistent, quite very much this is not the case in execute. Note that valuing the consistency of a value system is itself a sort of meta-value, that could be present or absent in a given value system. * They can be consider value systems (ideal representations of an indivi duals or groups value prioritizations) or realized value systems (how such a value system is manifested in reality, in the actions and decisions of the individual or group). see value systems tend to be absolute, in that they are codified as a unmitigated set of proscriptions on behavior, plot of ground realized value systems contain conditional exceptions that are rules to resolve collisions between values in practical circumstances. Personal vs. Communal A value system may be held by a group of pack, a community or society, or it cogency be held by an individual. An individual psyches value system susceptibility be consistent with or equivalent to the communitys value system. Consistency does not imply equivalence, though.An individuals value system might even hold the person to a higher(prenominal) standard, and still be consistent with the communitys value system. (Consistency inside a value system, described below, refers to the stop to which contradictions and overt situational exceptions are absent from that value system consistency between value systems room that any action that might be dartn in one value system would not contradict the rules associated with another. ) Exceptions One way of looking at differences between value systems is to view of the exceptions to the rules associated with values.These could be abstract exceptions (which are globalized passable in the way they are defined to take hold in all situations) and situational exceptions (which but can be said to be applied in very specific situations). The more generalized the exception, the more useful it is in a wider context for defining a consistent value system. In general, abstract exceptions serve to beef up the prioritization of values, e. g. Lying is wrong, only if lying to save someone elses life is acceptable, because preserving a human life is more valuable (more passing valued) than the adhering to the principle that lying is wrong.In a formal value syste m (idealized or realized), the negligence exception associated with each value is faux to be as long as no higher-priority value is reveald. However, this hierarchal structure may be likewise simplistic in practice, and explicit exceptions may need to be specified. Examples of exceptions in practice * We may commonly agree that heavy the truth is an important positive value, and that conversely deception is constitutionally wrong. But we occupy both abstract and situational exceptions for circumstances where we may assert that lying is acceptable behavior.Thus lying to avoid ca apply another person pain as a general rule would be considered an abstract exception, art object lying in a particular situation because a specific person, if lied to, might do a specific thing at a specific time would be considered a situational exception. * People may agree that theft is wrong, but some citizenry may commit that theft if you are starving and need to feed yourself and your lov ed ones is more acceptable than separateing if you are a abitual pirate who makes a living stealing from nation, or if you are an already wealthy person whose greed leads you to steal from your partners, your investors, or those you do phone line with. Others may flummox zero point wrong with stealing from faceless corporations and business organization establishments but may frown upon stealing from individuals. just about may define certain acts to qualify as not stealing if they fit into some of these categories. * People who think that dash offing is wrong might make an exception for someone acting in self-defense, placing a higher value on preservation of ones own life than on the principle of thou shalt not kill.Someone in the war machine might accept the value that killing another person is wrong yet may moderate nothing wrong with killing someone (in self-defense or not) in the course of or following the orders of a military commander (assumed to have a validated reason for ordering the killing), placing a higher value on discipline/ obedience and defending ones country. Conversely, a scrupulous objector might prioritize the value that killing is wrong not only over military actions but even over self-defense. Many people in the business world might take on the Golden Rule (which says Do unto others as you would have others do unto you) in their value system, but in practice they might place higher priority on the values like Every man for himself or Let the buyer listen. Conversely, another person might find that prioritization morally repugnant, and accuse the businessman of being unethical (or even of a form of theft) if he sells merchandise he knows to be shoddy, or deceives those he tries to do business with. ConsistencyA value system whose exceptions are abstract, generalized enough to be used in all situations, is said to be an internally consistent value system. On the other hand, a value system whose exceptions are highly situat ional, or whose exceptions are inconsistently applied, is said to be an internally inconsistent. A value systems consistency (or lack thereof) does not necessarily say anything about how good or evil it is. A value system that have gots that lying and murder are acceptable, that essentially endorses a might makes right morality, could be internally consistent in its approach.Likewise, an internally inconsistent value system, loaded with inconsistently applied situational exceptions, might be considered perfectly acceptable if the meta-value of consistent application of values is not part of the value system. (The paradox here is that the absence of this value in a value system makes it consistent, because there is no unobtrusiveness that says it must be consistent. It could be argued that those who explicitly omit this meta-value from their value system unspoken endorse consistency as a value in that act of contend omission. On the other hand, those who hold this value ) Ideali zed vs.Realized These exceptions, particularly when they are implicitly rather than explicitly defined, practically reappearance a difference between an idealized value system and the realized value system. The idealized value system is the simple listing of values (in priority order) that a person or society would feeling that they employ in determining right and wrong. The realized value system is the one they actually use in day-to-day life. While people deeding to employ a particular value system might say they place more value on x than y, more often than not there are deviations from this in practice.A consistent value system A religion may list a strong set of positive values, but its adherents and even those who are leaders of the religion may stray from those in practice. Idealized value systems often list strict rules (perhaps without any prioritizing order) but do not carefully define exceptions, abstract or situational. Realized value systems, in practice, often ha ve a number of exceptions associated with them, but they may not be explicitly defined or consistently applied. Absolutists hold to their idealized value system and claim no exceptions other than the default.Defining Values Some fundamental values that most people seem to share, at least in theory, are * Its wrong to hurt, to harm, or especially to kill another person. * Its wrong to steal from another person. * Its wrong to lie. In practice, realized examples of these values would be a good deal more complicated, with exceptions already plant in spite of appearance them. * Its wrong to hurt another person, except in self-defense to salve them from hurting you, or if it is concord upon with the other person as a step towards a mutually acceptable greater good (e. g. a doctor magnanimous a patient a awe-inspiring injection to cure an ailment). * Its wrong to take something from someone in a non-consensual formulate without negotiating overtly with the other person and agre eing to a mutually satisfactory transfer or exchange. * Its wrong to deceive another person knowingly for your own gain. * Its wrong to take deliberate overt action to forbid another person from exercising his forget as long as that sour does not interfere with your own work out of will, except when the other persons will serves to violate the aforementioned principles. In general, these values declare that its wrong to interfere in another persons life unless they do things to interfere in yours This corresponds in essence to what has been called the Wiccan Rede which declares that As long as it harms none, do what thou wilt. While this may seem an elegant moral principle, in practice it runs into trouble because of the differing priorities people place on specific individual values, because of the way differing value systems define what is and isnt harm, and perhaps most of all because of the different exceptions implicitly or explicitly defined in a value system.Examples of conflicting value systems This section is devoted to the process of using rational analysis to resolve conflicts between value systems. Individualism vs. collectivism In individualism, the needfully and wants of the individual take precedence over the needs and wants of a society or community. The implicit exception inherent in individualism is usually as long as the actions of the individual do not harm other individuals. Absolutists may claim that even this exception does not hold.In collectivism, the needs and wants of the society or community take precedence over the needs and wants of the individual. Rarely is the exception invoked that this is true as long as the actions of the society do not moderate individuals . It could be argued that a rational value system puts value on the needs and wants of the society or community structure, but does not give this more value than the needs and wants of the individuals within it.It is relatively easy to argue the case for this pri oritization under collectivism, a community could learn (however such decisions might be do) that it would work better if there were no people in it to interfere with the smooth rail of society. While this might be true, since people tend to complicate the smooth path of any social order, it would create a society without any people, something which is clearly against the relate of the people in that societywould we rationally advocate our own extinction if it made the system of society run better?A rational resolution to the conflict between individualism and collectivism might structure these values in this mien 1. The rights of individuals to act as they wish is unencumbered, unless their actions harm others or interfere with others free model of their individual rights, and as long as their actions do not interfere with functions of society that other individuals depend upon, provided those functions do not themselves interfere with these proscribed individual rights and were agreed to by a majority of the individuals. . A society (or more specifically the system of order that enables the workings of a society) exists for the economic consumption of benefitting the lives of the individuals who are members of that society. The functions of a society in providing such benefits would be those agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society. 1. A society may require contributions from its members in order for them to benefit from the services provided by the society.The disaster of individuals to make such required contributions could be considered a reason to deny those benefits to them, although a society could elect to consider disappointment situations in determining how much should be contributed. 1. A society may restrict behavior of individuals who are members of the society only for the purpose of performing its designated functions agreed to by the majority of individuals in the society, only hitherto as they violate the aforementio ned values.This means that a society may revoke the rights of any of its members who fails to uphold the aforementioned values. Of necessity, as you can see here, the exceptions associated with values like these can become recursive and often convoluted. The name proposed for the discipline that tries to perform this jobmapping and formalizing value system prioritizations and terminate conflicts between disparate value systems by rational analysisis ethonomics.