Who Is A Low Jen Science Of Positive Emotion

Jennifer Senior discusses her research concerning positive psychology and whether or not happiness is teachable and highlights some of the darker sides of happiness. To start the article, Senior reveals her score on her test from the Authentic Happiness Inventory. The test designed by Chris Peterson of the positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. This test is intended to numerically score ones level of happiness. In a scale of 1 to 5, Jennifer got a grade of 2.88. This indicated she was below average for most rankings such as “age, education level, gender and occupation” (422). Senior states she is at the 50 percent mark for her given zip code. She stated that liking her

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

A long-debated argument in the field of Psychology has been which theory or explanation of human behavior is the most important and the most viable. Is B. F. Skinner’s theory that behavior is the result of man’s response to external stimuli or is Carl Rogers’ theory that man’s behavior is the result of his determination to achieve self-actualization the best explanation? After much research and thought, I will argue in favor of Carl Rogers’ Humanistic Theory that “emphasizes the unique qualities of humans, especially their freedom and their potential for personal growth” (Weiten, 2016, p. 9).

Philosophers have debated for centuries the question “Are humans are selfish or selfless?” There are two main arguments for debating human nature, ethical egoists and ethical altruists. Ethical egoists believe that “even though we can act in others’ interests because we are concerned for others, we ought always to act in our own interest” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 460). Ethical altruists believe quite the opposite; ethical altruism is the belief that “people ought to act with each other’s interests in mind” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 461). In discussing the four theories, psychological egoism, psychological altruism, ethical egoism, and ethical altruism, with my husband, there was not a clear dividing line for whether humans are selfish or selfless in nature. After much debate, we concluded that humans are born ethical egoists; however, ethical altruists are made through proper training, care, and nurture.

It is a very arguable subject on whether or not people are born with good intentions, and therefore taught by others the ‘evil’ side of their personality. Whether it is the absence of ethical conduct in human nature, or just the way one perceives a situation, evil seems to be prominent in our everyday lives. Humans seem to have a moral code that follows them with every decision they make, yet despite the laws of morality and society, people of this world still seem to behave inhumanely because of the act of self-preservation, human interest, and who exactly the authority figure is at the time.

Happiness is a euphoric state, it is the light at the end of the tunnel, it is what individuals seek to achieve. Human beings inherently want to be happy. Happiness is unique because it has seven billion different definitions. In his book Immune to Reality, Daniel Gilbert argues that individuals are only as happy as the subconscious function of their brain allows them to be. Additionally, he questions the state of happiness by citing the psychological immune system. The psychological immune system is a subconscious process of the human brain, which favorably rationalizes human decisions whether they were right or not, regardless of outcome it always finds something favorable to take away. In Barbara Fredrickson’s Love 2.0, she introduces the vagus nerve as a biological apparatus to increase loving potential; Fredrickson links higher levels of loving potential to increased overall health. Most importantly, Fredrickson establishes the relationship between love and happiness as an interdependent one, “Having at least one close relationship like this is vital to your health and happiness” (108). Fredrickson believes that humans have the power within them to biologically alter themselves and to shape their own identity. Inversely, Malcolm Gladwell proclaims that human identity is shaped by the environment an individual is subject to in his book The Power of Context. Gladwell affirms that humans have the power to shape their identity, however only by changing the

Kant advocated, many human beings are sympathetically constructed that without any other motives they discover an inner satisfaction in dispersing joy around and take delight in the satisfaction of other people, as long as it is their own work. However, it may conform to duty and amiable it may appear, sympathy possess no true moral worth (Kant, 2012).

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

At first appearance, Smith’s notion of sympathy seems to imply that moral approval is subjective because he implies that we have no direct awareness of what is good or bad. However, Smith presents a solution to the subjectivity of moral perception. The solution he argues is that fellow-feeling is implanted in man by nature, thus giving sympathy an objective purpose sanctioned by nature. In his

The Origins of Morality: How Nature, Nurture, and Especially Free Will Influence One’s Moral Framework

The cruel nature and intentions of people can either hurt or harm individuals or it can bring about resilience and determination. In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee revealed that humans often have other motives in life; some are born to be evil in nature, some are naturally innocent and then there are some that are born to protect the innocent. Lee utilized a variety of symbols and themes that correlated with each other and thus had the ability to create questions in the minds of the readers. Are humans calculatedly cruel or is there some moral good in each of us? The impiety of a few can create a movement, imprison the innocent or reveal the sincerity of others.

The true nature of human action remains as an enigma for many and it is question whose answer is everywhere in the civilization that we have all collectively built. The author Jane Austen in persuasion believes that each person is self serving and kind when it 's in their best interest. Contrary to Austens’ belief, Mark Twain with“The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” shows a more optimistic view of human nature where the guilt and sense of sympathy are the driving emotions behind every action. Similarly, in the novel A Tree Grows in Brooklyn by Betty Smith identifies the empathy and duty as a primary cause for the kindness in each person. Every person is hardwired to be a social and inherently good person driven by the emotional consequences and

Here, Alex explains that goodness and badness in a human being is a natural trait and every human being needs free will to act according to their inborn trait. Nevertheless, such unbiased perception of free will becomes a problem when it is associated within the larger human society. Alex’s behaviour is a clear violation of the “harm principle” described by John Stuart Mill, which means that humans can engage in any action that does not harm anyone.

In his argument, Hinman (2007) asserts that every action that people engage in is motivated by self-interests or pleasure or direct benefits the agent or to avoid living with guilt in the future. This is the nature of human beings. Even the most altruistic action is in actual sense motivated by the egocentric desire of the actor (Hugh, 1898).

“Goleman persuasively argues for a new social model of intelligence drawn from the emerging field of social neuroscience. Describing what happens to our brains when we connect with others, Goleman demonstrates how relationships have the power to mold not only human experience but also human biology. In lucid prose he describes from a neurobiological perspective sexual attraction, marriage, parenting, psychopathic behaviors and the group dynamics of teachers and workers. Goleman frames his discussion in a critique of society 's creeping disconnection in the age of the iPod, constant digital connectivity and multitasking. Vividly evoking the power of social interaction to influence mood and brain chemistry, Goleman discusses the "toxicity" of insult and unpleasant social experience as he warns of the dangers of self-absorption and poor attention and reveals the positive effects of feel-good neurochemicals that are released in loving relationships and in caregiving. Drawing on numerous studies, Goleman illuminates new theories about attachment, bonding, and the making and remaking of memory as he examines how our brains are wired for altruism,