Moral Values: Situationally Defined Individual Differences

Abstract

Abstract:This article suggests that there are individual differences in how people define important moral values, and that these differences are made manifest in differences in the situations. It identifies five dimensions along which individuals can differ in their understandings of values: 1) value category (where the value lies in the hierarchy), 2) agent (how voluntary the action is and whether it is morally required of the agent), 3) object (how close the self is to the object of the action; whether the action offends God) 4) effect (whether the effect of the action is to harm or help), and 5) intention (whether the intention of the action is to harm or help). It then addresses four important values entailing moral dimensions: respect for life, respect for property, honest communication, and respect for religion. The article suggests that empirical research, classroom teaching, and business practice can be strengthened by considering these dimensions.

Business Moral Values of Supervisors and Subordinates and Their Effect on Employee Effectiveness

“…Schwartz (2005) reviewed the previous research on moral rules in organizations and found that the most important such rules included trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Both Scott (2000) and Schwartz (2005) discussed general approved personal moral values. However, for the better management of organizations, greater knowledge of business-specific moral values is necessary to understand the influence of moral values on the business activities of organizations.…”

“…Scott (2000) gave four principles of moral values: (a) honest communication; (b) using one's own rights properly and not interfering with the rights of others; (c) respecting life; and (d) following rules and principles of justice. The concept of moral values developed by Schwartz (1992Schwartz ( , 1994 has been widely used by researchers.…”

Moral Values – A Comparative Study: Romanian and Turkish Students

“…intention of the action is to harm or help), and also four important values entailing moral dimensions: respect for life, respect for property, honest communication, and respect for religion (Scott, 2000). One of the most widely referenced approaches for analyzing variations among cultures was done in the late 1970s by Geert Hofstede.…”

“…Elisabeth D. Scott (2000) notices individual differences in the way people define important moral values, these differences manifest themselves in dissimilarities within situations (Scott, 2000: 497). Scott's research identifies five dimensions in which individuals can differ in their understanding of values: 1) value category (where the value lies in the hierarchy), 2) agent (how voluntary the action is and whether or not it is morally required of the agent), 3) object (how close the self is to the object of the action; whether the action offends God), 4) effect (whether the effect of the action is to harm or help), and 5) intention (whether the Salceanu, C., Manea, C.-N., Geafer, E. G. (2015).…”

Equality, Trust and Universalism in Europe, Canada and the United States: Implications for Health Care Policy

“…The various demographic variables to be examined in this study are "social class" as a self-reported variable in the World Values Survey, age, gender, level of education, income level, and town size of residence. Social class embodies a powerful and persistent predictor of accessibility to resources, potential for longevity and success as well as self-esteem, and has been a variable of interest to values scholars in various disciplines over the years (Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004;Scott, 2000;Kohn, 1976;Rokeach, 1973). While social class has been determined to be a significant determinant of individual decisions and social actions among adults as (Allen, 2004;Levine, 1998), it has also been found to have a powerful influence on children's values as well (Kohn, 1976).…”