Facts, Values and the Psychology of the Human Person

Abstract

The notion of value neutrality has been a contentious issue within the human and social sciences for some time. In this paper, some of the philosophical and scientific bases for the confusion surrounding the fact-value dichotomy are covered and the discrepancy between how psychology studies values and expresses them is noted. The sense of value neutrality is clarified historically and the clarified meaning of the term applied to some qualitative data demonstrating in what sense values may be expressed in psychology. The position is upheld that psychology as a human science intentionally should not be absolutely value free in the sense that human reality has to be studied in a non-reductionistic manner and thus methods of study must be respectful of the full ethical sense of humanness. This is simply meeting the phenomenological requirement of "fidelity to the phenomenon". However, psychology can be value free in the historical sense of the term properly understood because it refers to the fact that the personal values of the scientists ought not to be conflated with scientific findings. The discussion of values takes place primarily within the context of science, where the problem of value neutrality emerged, but it is acknowledged that non-scientific approaches to value have merit and can also be compelling. In the English language the word (value) is used in a somewhat loose and fluctuating way. Philosophers and social scientists concerned with value questions have long recognized the need for a more precise terminology to facilitate the exact formulations needed in scholarly and scientific contexts. But this desideratum seems to be the only point of agreement .... [A]ll their positive efforts have failed. (p. 1) The IPJP is a joint project of Rhodes University in South Africa and Edith Cowan University in Australia. This document is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in whole or in part via any medium (print, electronic or otherwise) without the express permission of the publishers.

The oughtness of existence: Living and suffering by what we ought

“…The privileging of personality in favor of character is closely connected to the preceding distinction between fact and value (Banicki, 2017; Giorgi, 2006). This distinction is usually derived from David Hume’s (1739/1978) Treatise , in which Hume points out what he finds to be an illegitimate trend in all systems of morality to derive an “ought” from an “is” (Hume, 1739/1978, p. 469).…”

“…Until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, research on human character was widespread among psychology researchers. Later, however, research on personality substituted that of character (Giorgi, 2006; Nicholson, 1998). According to the accounts of Banicki (2017), Giorgi (2006), and Nicholson (1998), Allport’s (1937) Watson-inspired proposal that “character is personality evaluated, and personality is character devaluated” (p. 52) played a seminal role in the establishment of personality in favor of character as a proper object of psychology:A crucial point to be made here is that the act of evaluation is considered as an addition of a new element to an earlier phenomenon of personality, which can be comprehended without any reference to normativeness.…”

Emily Hobhouse’s Psychosocial Developmental Trajectory as Anti-War Campaigner: A Levinsonian Psychobiography

“…It is particularly due to this reason that phenomenologists play a central role in the humanist movement. In line with Giorgi's (1997Giorgi's ( , 2006 view that human reality and the individual are to be studied in a non-reductionistic manner, phenomenological methods are anchored in an ethical sense of humaneness. Phenomenologists resist the common pursuit of control in striving to establish a genuine and compassionate understanding of a person as a unified whole within a socio-historical and cultural context (Dahlberg, 2006;Gergen, 2014).This pursuit by phenomenologists of a truly genuine understanding of human experience, humaneness, and the relevance of the individual's socio-historical and cultural context, are valuable goals that align with the pursuit of psychobiography.…”