title: Virtue, self-narratives, and the causes of action

authors: Lumsden, David

abstract: Virtues can be considered to play a causal role in the production of behaviour and so too can our self-narratives. We identify a point of connection between the two cases and draw a parallel between them. But, those folk psychological notions, virtues and self-narratives, fail to reduce smoothly to the underlying human physiology. As a first step towards handling that failure to connect with the scientific framework that is the familiar grounding for our understanding of causation, we consider the causal theory of action, a leading theory of action, which shows how reasons, understood as an appropriate pair of beliefs and desires, can be treated as causes of action. Davidson’s picture is based on cause as a relation between events, which can have both a description in scientific terms and in folk psychological terms. The character of both virtues and self-narratives is not that of events, even extended ones, so we need to refer to examples of scientific explanation that incorporate structural properties of objects. While we retain the spirit of the causal theory, we wish to guard against any unwarranted optimism that an explicitly scientific explanation for human action lies in our future, drawing on Chomsky’s view that a causal explanation of human actions is likely to remain beyond human science forming capacities. We take a mild-realist view of virtues and self-narratives, in the style of Dennett. We argue that, in spite of that limited form of realism, underlined by Chomsky’s mysterian position in this domain, we still need to frame our explanations of behaviour based on virtues and self-narratives in causal terms.

text: Virtue, self-narratives, and the causes of action Virtues can be considered to play a causal role in the production of behaviour and so too can our self-narratives. We identify a point of connection between the two cases and draw a parallel between them. But, those folk psychological notions, virtues and self-narratives, fail to reduce smoothly to the underlying human physiology. As a first step towards handling that failure to connect with the scientific framework that is the familiar grounding for our understanding of causation, we consider the causal theory of action, a leading theory of action, which shows how reasons, understood as an appropriate pair of beliefs and desires, can be treated as causes of action. Davidson’s picture is based on cause as a relation between events, which can have both a description in scientific terms and in folk psychological terms. The character of both virtues and self-narratives is not that of events, even extended ones, so we need to refer to examples of scientific explanation that incorporate structural properties of objects. While we retain the spirit of the causal theory, we wish to guard against any unwarranted optimism that an explicitly scientific explanation for human action lies in our future, drawing on Chomsky’s view that a causal explanation of human actions is likely to remain beyond human science forming capacities. We take a mild-realist view of virtues and self-narratives, in the style of Dennett. We argue that, in spite of that limited form of realism, underlined by Chomsky’s mysterian position in this domain, we still need to frame our explanations of behaviour based on virtues and self-narratives in causal terms.

year: 2023-10-23

title: Cross-cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A Taiwanese-British comparison

authors: Lu, Luo

subjects: work-to-family conflict (WFC)

abstract: The aim of this research was to explore relations between work and family demands and resources, work-to-family conflict (WFC), and work and family outcomes in a cross-cultural comparative context involving Taiwanese and British employees. Two-hundred and sixty-four Taiwanese employees and 137 British employees were surveyed using structured questionnaires. For both Taiwanese and British employees, work and family demands were positively related to WFC, whereas work resources were negatively related to WFC. Furthermore, WFC was negatively related to family satisfaction. More importantly, we found that nation moderated relationships between work resources and WFC, WFC and work, and family satisfaction. Specifically, work resources had a stronger protective effect for Taiwanese than British in reducing WFC, whereas WFC had a stronger detrimental effect on role satisfaction for British than Taiwanese. It is recommended that both culture-general and culture-specific effects should be taken into consideration in designing future WFC research and familyfriendly managerial practices.

text: Cross-cultural differences on work-to-family conflict and role satisfaction: A Taiwanese-British comparison The aim of this research was to explore relations between work and family demands and resources, work-to-family conflict (WFC), and work and family outcomes in a cross-cultural comparative context involving Taiwanese and British employees. Two-hundred and sixty-four Taiwanese employees and 137 British employees were surveyed using structured questionnaires. For both Taiwanese and British employees, work and family demands were positively related to WFC, whereas work resources were negatively related to WFC. Furthermore, WFC was negatively related to family satisfaction. More importantly, we found that nation moderated relationships between work resources and WFC, WFC and work, and family satisfaction. Specifically, work resources had a stronger protective effect for Taiwanese than British in reducing WFC, whereas WFC had a stronger detrimental effect on role satisfaction for British than Taiwanese. It is recommended that both culture-general and culture-specific effects should be taken into consideration in designing future WFC research and familyfriendly managerial practices.

year: 2010

title: The "false generosity" of treaty settlements: innovation and contortion

authors: Te Aho, Linda

abstract: In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³

text: The "false generosity" of treaty settlements: innovation and contortion In Aotearoa New Zealand the ways in which indigenous claims to lands and waters are addressed are often looked to as good, or even best, practice by indigenous peoples around the world. While things are far from perfect, in recent decades Maori have succeeded in changing perceptions about the Treaty of Waitangi as the foundation of the nation, and work steadily continues on settling outstanding Treaty claims. The resulting Treaty of Waitangi settlements are negotiated arrangements which aim to remove a sense of historical grievance and achieve significant rebuilding of the Maori economy. They are seen by some as dynamic and powerful steps towards economic independence, as a means of recognising special relationships to lands and waters, and a necessary prerequisite to improved relationships between the state and the indigenous Maori in the future. ¹ Critics see the settlements and the processes followed to reach them as too heavily weighted in the government's favour. ² They argue that the settlements do not sufficiently compensate for actual losses. They are said to pit Maori against Maori. Diverse claimant groups are effectively forced to negotiate within standardised and fixed parameters. For these and other reasons, the settlement agreements, policies and processes have been labelled as divisive and compromising self-determination. ³

year: 2017