Surprisingly, the link between fatalistic beliefs and unethical behavior has never been examined scientifically -- until now.
And the study is very interesting, provided the methodology stands scrutiny. In fact, the results were not counter-intuitive, either.
those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.
Now all we have to do is relate this to Calvinism, Augustianism, Pelagianism and Arminianism. Though we should note that all of those systems of thought at their best nuance the basic view that they take about free-will to encompass elements of 'the other' view and not to undermine motivation to do well. The debate is not settled by this, of course but the dangers of fatalism do become clearer. It occurs to me also that this may have bearing on things like beliefs in destiny or electedness also.
5 comments:
Hello,
do you have a reference for this study? Sounds interesting.
cath
Yeh: just click on the title of the post and the link is 'under' that.
thanks!
will have a read...
Okay i tracked down the published study (available here in pdf - only 6 pages, so short enough to read!) :)
Determinism is taken in its 'scientific' sense - ie emphasising the view that "behaviour is caused by genes underlying personality dispositions, brain mechanisms, or features of the environment" etc. Free will is articulated by statements like "I am able to override the genetic and environmental factors that sometimes influence my behaviour".
It's also worth noting that the participants' beliefs were experimentally manipulated - ie the experimenters encouraged the adoption of the various viewpoints through the passages of text which the participants read prior to taking part in the task itself - rather than allocating the participants to groups based on their confessed personal philosophical or religious commitments.
It's definitely an interesting question about how different theological schools of thought (a) would interpret these findings and (b) impact the behaviour of their adherents - altho obviously going far beyond what the data collected in the study would license.
One thing that these doctrinal positions have in common, for instance, is a belief in God who makes moral demands on human beings - and holds us morally responsible for whatever we do. So even if you believed that all your actions were unchangeably foreordained by God, your belief in the very existence of God would (presumably, assuming you believed he was holy and good) modulate your tendency to cheat in situations like the ones presented to the participants in Vohs and Schooler's study.
Still, it's fascinating to think that even the limited exposure to one or the other philosophical position in this study has such measurable effects on people's behaviour! Makes you fear (as it seems the authors might be hinting) what the effects of long-term and sustained exposure to the increasingly popularised view that genes determine behaviour might have.
Thanks for pointing out this interesting article!
Thanks Cath for adding detail to the matter. At the moment I'm not really able to follow some of these things up in detail -more flagging them up for future usage, so this comment is really helpful.
Post a Comment