This paper provides a sketch of an agent-centered way of understanding and answering the question, “What’s wrong with that?” On this view, what lies at the bottom of judgments of wrongness is a bad attitude; when someone does something wrong, she does something that expresses a bad, or inappropriate, attitude . In order to motivate this account, a general Kantian agent-centered ethics is discussed, as well as Michael Slote’s agent-based ethics, in light of analysis of (...) the grounding role of attitudes in the evaluation of two core cases. In light of these discussions, it is argued that there are advantages to preserving the grounding of the appropriateness of attitudes in facts about their objects , while cutting such an agent-centered ethics away from a Kantian grounding. (shrink)

I argue that agent-centered options to favor and sacrifice one’s own interests are grounded in a particular aspect of self-ownership. Because you own your interests, you are entitled to a say over how they are used. That is, whether those interests count for or against some action is, at least in part, to be determined by your choice. This is not the only plausible argument for agent-centered options. But it has some virtues that other arguments lack.

What kinds of persons do we aspire to be, and how do our aspirations fit with our ideas of rationality? In _Agent-Centered Morality_, George Harris argues that most of us aspire to a certain sort of integrity: We wish to be respectful of and sympathetic to others, and to be loving parents, friends, and members of our communities. Against a prevailing Kantian consensus, Harris offers an Aristotelian view of the problems presented by practical reason, problems of integrating all our (...) concerns into a coherent, meaningful life in a way that preserves our integrity. The task of solving these problems is "the integration test." Systematically addressing the work of major Kantian thinkers, Harris shows that even the most advanced contemporary versions of the Kantian view fail to integrate all of the values that correspond to what we call a moral life. By demonstrating how the meaning of life and practical reason are internally related, he constructs from Aristotle's thought a conceptual scheme that successfully integrates all the characteristics that make a life meaningful, without jeopardizing the place of any. Harris's elucidation of this approach is a major contribution to debates on human agency, practical reason, and morality. (shrink)

It is a plausible and compelling theoretical assumption that epistemic rationality is just a matter of having doxastic attitudes that are the correct responses to one’s epistemic reasons, or that all requirements of epistemic rationality reduce to requirements on doxastic attitudes. According to this idea, all instances of epistemic rationality are instances of rational belief. Call this assumption, and any theory working under it, _belief-centered_. In what follows, I argue that we should not accept belief-centered theories of epistemic rationality. (...) This is an argument in three acts. In the first, I present counterexamples that problematize the belief-centered assumption: cases whose protagonists (i) fail to meet any plausible requirements on belief but (ii) nevertheless appear epistemically rational. In the second act, I consider alternative explanations of the counterexamples, friendly to the belief-centered theorist, and find them wanting. In the third and final act, I show that there are significant theoretical benefits to acknowledging a distinct agent-centered dimension of epistemic rationality and sketch a candidate agent-centered approach: a view that grounds an agent’s epistemic rationality in the possession of _good epistemic policies_. In the end, we see that a complete theory of epistemic rationality is as much of a theory of rational _agents_ as it is of rational _belief_. (shrink)

Agent-centered epistemic norms direct thinkers to attach different significance to their own epistemically relevant states than they attach to the similar states of others. Thus, if S and T both know, for certain, that S has the intuition that P, this might justify S in believing that P, yet fail to justify T in believing that P. I defend agent-centeredness and explain how an agent-centered theory can accommodate intuitions that seem to favor agent-neutrality.

Deontologists have long been upbraided for lacking an account of justified decision- making under risk and uncertainty. One response is to develop a deontological decision theory—a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for an act’s being permissible given an agent’s imperfect information. In this article, I show that deontologists can make more use of regular decision theory than some might have thought, but that we must adapt decision theory to accommodate agent- centered options—permissions to favor or sacrifice (...) our own interests, when doing so is overall morally worse. Accommodating options requires more than just amend- ing the decision-theoretic ‘value function’. We must change the decision rule as well. (shrink)

In this, the sixth chapter of _Kantsequentialism: A Morality of Ends_, I argue that the duty of beneficence is best understood as a duty both (a) to adopt helping the needy as a serious, major, continually relevant, life-shaping end and (b) to refrain from acting in a way that would manifest one’s failure to do so. What’s more, I argue that Kantsequentialism offers us the best account of whether an act manifests a failure to have adopted helping the needy as (...) such a life-shaping end. I start by considering some alternative accounts of our duty of beneficence, examining where each goes wrong. I then conclude by showing how Kantsequentialism offers us the best approach to accommodating agent-centered options. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Agent-Centered Morality: An Aristotelian Alternative to Kantian InternalismDaniel E. PalmerGeorge W. Harris. Agent-Centered Morality: An Aristotelian Alternative to Kantian Internalism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Pp. xi + 434. Cloth, $60.00.Contemporary philosophers have found substantial resources in the ethical writings of both Aristotle and Kant. Together Aristotelian-inspired virtue ethics and Kantian constructivism have not only contributed greatly to the resurgence of interest in (...) normative theory in recent decades, but have also provided the most prominent alternatives to the utilitarianism that has dominated Anglo-American ethics for so long. However, the development of these ethical projects has been carried out largely independently of one another. In Agent-Centered Morality, George Harris helps to overcome this lacuna by comparing and contrasting these two competing versions of [End Page 449] morality. As such, this work is a welcome addition to the literature both as a survey of recent work in Aristotelian and Kantian ethics as well as an account of the many ways in which they converge and diverge in their corresponding treatments of practical rationality.Harris begins by noting that the appeal of both the Aristotelian and Kantian models is that they attempt to generate a foundation for ethics within an account of practical reason, and thus to ground morality within a deliberative perspective that connects the demands of morality with an agent's own meaningful commitments. As such, Harris correctly argues that these projects have much more in common than has sometimes been supposed. The central question that Harris raises in this book is which account of practical reason is best suited for this task. His thesis is that the Aristotelian model gives us a more plausible picture of the role of norms within practical rationality.The major distinction between the Aristotelian and the Kantian models according to Harris is that while on the Aristotelian model the norms made use of in practical judgments are symmetric in their regulative function, the Kantian model provides an asymmetrical account of norms. To arbitrate between these two views, Harris proposes an integration test. The point of the integration test is to assure that our account of practical rationality and the function of regulative norms that it provides can support the integrity of rational agents. Minimally then, the test will favor the account of practical rationality that best "integrates the various concerns of rational human agents in a way that preserves integrity" (32).While the above vastly simplifies Harris's rich treatment of this issue, it nonetheless allows us to see how Harris goes about arguing for the superiority of the Aristotelian view. For Harris maintains that the Aristotelian symmetrical model integrates regulative norms better than the Kantian model. To show why, Harris makes use of a number of examples to demonstrate that regulative norms function in a symmetrical fashion in regards to one another for the agent of integrity. For instance, to show that the norm of impartial respect is sometimes regulated by the norm of impartial sympathy, Harris gives an example of someone who breaks a lunch date in order to help a dog that is being mistreated. Likewise, Harris uses examples to argue that sometimes even partial norms, like that of parental concern, regulate the impartial norm of respect. Harris believes that these cases demonstrate that the regulative norms made use of in practical deliberation must function in a symmetrical fashion. Thus, Harris thinks we have good reason to reject the Kantian view "that the integrative function of practical reason is achieved by an impartial norm that is asymmetrical in its regulative function" (127).Though interesting and worthy of attention, I am not convinced that Harris makes use of the most plausible understanding of the Kantian model of practical rationality in his central argument. By focusing almost exclusively upon the idea of respect, Harris assumes that the best reading of the Kantian project will be founded primarily in the idea of impartial respect. However, if we adopt a procedural understanding of the Categorical Imperative, a plausible case could be made that a Kantian account of practical rationality can account for the examples that Harris makes use of just as well as the Aristotelian... (shrink)

There are two alternative approaches to accommodating an agent-centered restriction against, say, φ-ing. One approach is to prohibit agents from ever φ-ing. For instance, there could be an absolute prohibition against breaking a promise. The other approach is to require agents both to adopt an end that can be achieved only by their not φ-ing and to give this end priority over that of minimizing overall instances of φ-ing. For instance, each agent could be required both to (...) adopt the end of minimizing their own promise-breakings and to give this end priority over that of minimizing promise-breakings overall. The former is what I’ll call the side-constraint approach, and the latter is what I’ll call the teleological approach. In this chapter, I argue that, when it comes to accommodating restrictions, we should (1) favor the teleological approach over the side-constraint approach, (2) favor an act-consequentialist approach over a non-consequentialist, teleological approach (such as Rossian pluralism), and (3) favor a Kantsequentialist approach over other act-consequentialist approaches, where Kantsequentialism is a version of act-consequentialism that holds that persons are ends-in-themselves who are inherently and unconditionally valuable and are, thus, owed our respect. (shrink)

This essay focuses on Elena Ziliotti’s ‘agent-centered approach’ in her discussion of political leadership. In her view, ‘political leaders are a critical political agency.’ I advance three criticisms: one conceptual and two normative. First, it’s conceptually unclear whether her approach is ‘agent-centered.’ Second, a political leader may need to contravene instrumental virtues to uphold the virtue of public spiritedness. Third, it’s unrealistic to expect politicians to prioritize virtues when they conflict with the goal of gaining power (...) and making a living from it. (shrink)

In Agent-Centered Morality, George W. Harris constructs a broadly Aristotelian conception of morality and argues for its superiority over Kantian conceptions. Harris approaches morality through human practical reason. He is committed to articulating a plausible account of how human beings think, value, and choose based on their conceptions of their own good. Harris’s ethics is “agent-centered” in that it takes moral obligations to be grounded in what makes life meaningful from the agent’s point of view. (...) The ethical system that emerges from Harris’s approach rejects the impartiality, universality, and overriding rationality that Enlightenment philosophers attributed to morality. (shrink)

Agent-centered morality has been a serious challenge to ethical theories based on agent-neutral morality in defining what is the moral point of view. In this paper, my concern is to examine whether arguments for agent-centered morality, in particular, arguments for agent-centered option, can be justified. -/- After critically examining three main arguments for agent-centered morality, I will contend that although there is a ring of truth in the demands of agent- (...) class='Hi'>centered morality, agent-centered morality is more problematic than agent-neutral morality. Nevertheless, we need to take seriously the challenges to agent-neutral morality by finding a way to reflect the insight of agent-centered morality within the framework of agent-neutral morality without collapsing it into agent-centered morality. As a way of doing so, I suggest that we need to integrate the situated, rather than transcendental, nonideal, rather than idealized, and dialogical, rather than monological, perspectives developed in feminist ethics, into agent-neutral morality. (shrink)

This paper takes up a neglected problem for metaethical noncognitivism: the characterization of the acceptance states for agent-centered normative theories like Rational Egoism. If Egoism is a coherent view, the non-cognitivist needs a coherent acceptance state for it. This can be provided, as Dreier and Gibbard have shown. But those accounts fail when generalized, assigning the same acceptance state to normative theories that are clearly distinct, or assigning no acceptance state to theories that look to be intelligible. The (...) paper makes the case for this and then asks: What should we conclude if the problem cannot be solved? We might conclude that since Egoism is clearly a coherent view, the argument amounts to a refutation of noncognitivism. But we suggest another possibility. There is, on reflection, something incoherent, or at least odd, in standard formulations of Egoism; noncognitivism predicts this and so provides an intriguing explanation for this fact. (shrink)

Harris develops a neo-Aristotelian account of practical and moral reasoning that does account for such decisions of good people. On this account moral reasoning is part of a larger practice of practical reasoning and is viable only if it integrates smoothly into this larger practice. Good people, on Harris’s view of them, have a number of kinds of concerns that are integrated in their practical reasoning dispositions. Persons with “integrity in the thick sense” care about their family members, their friends, (...) about less intimate members of their communities and about “respectable” strangers from outside the community; they also care about having interesting things to do and meaningful work, and about doing some things in an excellent way. Insofar as people really care about any of these things, the satisfaction of the concerns produces a satisfying and meaningful life for the agent. So Harris’s theory is a kind of eudaimonism, though he points out that what people are seeking in pursuing these ends is the ends themselves—say, the well-being of friends or of respectable strangers or the well-turned musical phrase—and not something in addition called “happiness” to which these ends are means. (shrink)

13. The Normative Thoughts of Neighborly Love, Part 1.

The consequentializing project relies on agentcentered value (aka agent-relative value), but many philosophers find the idea incomprehensible or incoherent. Discussions of agent-centered value often model it with a theory that assigns distinct better-than rankings of states of affairs to each agent, rather than assigning a single ranking common to all. A less popular kind of model uses a single ranking, but takes the value-bearing objects to be properties (sets of centered worlds) rather than states of (...) affairs (sets of worlds). There are rhetorical, presentational differences between these kinds of models, but are there also structural differences? Do the two kinds of models differ in their capacity to represent normative theories? Despite an initial appearance of equivalence, the two kinds of models are different. The single ranking of properties has greater representational power; its representations contain more information. The main question I address in this article is whether this extra information is useful, in the sense that it distinguishes between normative views that we think are really different, or whether it is just junk information. (shrink)

In this book Harris intends to construct an agent-centered conception of morality grounded on a naturalistic understanding of practical reason. In order to achieve this goal, he contrasts his Aristotelian revisionist perspective with the traditional and internalist Kantian proposals, focusing on two specific matters: the opposition between agent-centered and agent-neutral norms, and the newer and very interesting discussion of symmetrical versus asymmetrical regulative norms. The first topic will be especially relevant for the rejection of traditional (...) Kantianism, while the second will be the main argument against Kantian internalism. The author defends the thesis that some nouns have priority in some contexts and not in others against the context-insensibility of Kantian theories. In particular, giving a fair account of them and plenty of detailed argument to refute some of their aspects, he discusses Barbara Herman’s, Marcia Baron’s, Nancy Sherman’s, David Cummiskey’s, Christine Kosgaard’s, and John Rawls’s proposals. (shrink)

In this paper I evaluate the nature of the claim that agent-centered restrictions render deontology inconsistent and address three seemingly promising responses available to the deontologist. The first response is inspired by Kant’s essay “On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns.” The latter two responses appeal to the importance of personal moral integrity and the moral worth of actions, respectively. I conclude that neither response will allow the deontologist to refute the charge of inconsistency.

The concept of feasibility has received a significant amount of scrutiny in recent years. Despite the diversity of accounts, all agree on the assumption that feasibility considerations have a practical function in guiding action. However, the two most important accounts (by Gilabert and Lawford-Smith, and by Wiens) seem to scarcely speak to this practical function because they provide a third-personal reconstruction of feasibility constraints. In this paper, I argue that, to understand feasibility constraints in a way that matters for guiding (...) action, we should switch from a third-personal to an agent-centered perspective. I show that relevant constraints can be Barriers, Limitations, Boundaries, and Rubber Walls to the extent that they concern nomic impossibilities (Barriers), resources (Limitations), agents’ abilities (Boundaries) or other people’s unwillingness (Rubber Walls). Understanding constraints through the lens of their qualitatively different natures opens the way for addressing the problem of how to respond to them. (shrink)

The paradox of deontology, as the name suggests, is generally thought to pose a problem for deontological theory, particularly for agent-centered restrictions. I argue that it is neither a paradox nor a problem for restrictions. On the contrary, the cases that are alleged to generate the paradox presuppose restrictions, which shifts the burden to the opponent of restrictions.

Although contemporary analytic epistemology continues to be dominated by externalist accounts, an alternative internalist approach has recently emerged that emphasizes the epistemic role of consciousness, in particular of conscious experience. According to the phenomenological experience-first epistemology (PEFE) discussed in this paper, certain experiences constitute a source of immediate justification as well as our ultimate evidence. One reason why internalist approaches are less popular in current debates is the common assumption that externalism fits better with scientific practice. In this picture, the (...) natural sciences are typically understood as adopting a third-person perspective that successfully abstracts away from the subject and her personal experiences. Here, I discuss an alternative view of science, namely science as understood within the framework of agent-centered approaches to quantum mechanics. More specifically, my focus will be on QBism, a highly controversial but increasingly popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, whose defining feature is the interpretation of quantum probabilities as subjective Bayesian probabilities. The objective of this paper is to clarify the relationship between epistemology and science under the assumption that both PEFE and QBism are correct. (shrink)

Although contemporary analytic epistemology continues to be dominated by externalist accounts, an alternative internalist approach has recently emerged that emphasizes the epistemic role of consciousness, in particular of conscious experience. According to the phenomenological experience-first epistemology (PEFE) discussed in this paper, certain experiences constitute a source of immediate justification as well as our ultimate evidence. One reason why internalist approaches are less popular in current debates is the common assumption that externalism fits better with scientific practice. In this picture, the (...) natural sciences are typically understood as adopting a third-person perspective that successfully abstracts away from the subject and her personal experiences. Here, I discuss an alternative view of science, namely science as understood within the framework of agent-centered approaches to quantum mechanics. More specifically, my focus will be on QBism, a highly controversial but increasingly popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, whose defining feature is the interpretation of quantum probabilities as subjective Bayesian probabilities. The objective of this paper is to clarify the relationship between epistemology and science under the assumption that both PEFE and QBism are correct. (shrink)

The papers collected in this volume exemplify some of the trends in current approaches to logic, language and computation. Written by authors with varied academic backgrounds, the contributions are intended for an interdisciplinary audience. The first part of this volume addresses issues relevant for multi-agent systems: reasoning with incomplete information, reasoning about knowledge and beliefs, and reasoning about games. Proofs as formal objects form the subject of Part II. Topics covered include: contributions on logical frameworks, linear logic, and different (...) approaches to formalized reasoning. Part III focuses on representations and formal methods in linguistic theory, addressing the areas of comparative and temporal expressions, modal subordination, and compositionality. (shrink)

I argue that the GANE model basically explains an arousal-based amplification of emotional stimuli, whereas effects on neutral stimuli indicate a contextualization process aiming to reduce stimulus ambiguity. To extend the model's validity, I suggest distinguishing between internal and external emotional sources, as well considering the stimulus valence and addressing age-related differences in attention and memory preferences.

This chapter deals with the concept “world-centered value” which seems to be a natural extension of some concepts that already exist in ethical theory and also seems useful for understanding some confusing ideas (about the representation of prohibition dilemmas or about apparent failures of transitivity of “better than”) in the work of other philosophers. The chapter explains that concept and employs it to explicate the confusing ideas. If the concept makes sense, and if it can be useful in understanding (...) the ideas by placing them in the consequentialist framework, then world-centered value earns its keep and should find a place next to agent-centered and time-centered value in the ethical theorist’s toolbox. (shrink)

In certain problem-solving contexts, people organize their domain through treating themselves as the perceptual and cognitive center of their world. They identify and solve a particular problem from their perspective as a particular agent, with a particular location, at a particular time, in a particular environment. When they do this, they engage in a distinctive kind of agent-centered problem-solving. For many contexts involving intelligent agents, partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs), a framework for modeling decision-making in uncertain (...) environments unfolding over time, have effectively become a “standard model.” Yet, as these models are ordinarily interpreted, they do not explicitly represent agent- centered problem-solving. Accordingly, to model this type of problem-solving, we begin by extending the standard POMDP framework to de ne “ePOMDPs.” This formalism models how an agent, once it centers itself on a particular self-and-world representation, plans and acts rationally from its own perspective. To capture the way that such agents choose which problem to solve, we build on our ePOMDPs to develop a“meta-ePOMDP” agent within a hierarchical Bayesian framework. We implement meta-ePOMDP agents for two different suites of“centering game” tasks that highlight different aspects of our theory. We nd that our models explain signatures of agent-centered problem-solving not captured by alternative models, in particular, the dif culty of navigating spaces of possible problem representations. We close by suggesting that our model could provide the beginnings of a computational framework for how a person could have a self. (shrink)

Everettian quantum mechanics tells us that the fundamental dynamics of the universe are deterministic. So what are the `probabilities' that the Born rule describes? One popular answer has been to treat these probabilities as rational credences. A recent alternative, Isaac Wilhelm's centered Everett Interpretation (CEI), takes the Born probabilities to be centered chances: the objective chances that some centered propositions are true. Thus, the CEI challenges the `orthodox assumption’ that fundamental physical laws concern only uncentered facts. I (...) provide three arguments against the centered Everett Interpretation. First, I argue that the CEI is in apparent tension with a significant motivation for adopting Everettian quantum mechanics: rejecting the attribution of special significance to observers or agents in fundamental physics. I suggest the CEI can avoid this tension, but only at the cost of sacrificing its central claim that there are objective chances in an Everettian multiverse. My second argument concerns the CEI’s claim that the centered Born rule is a fundamental physical law. I provide two plausible notions of fundamentality for physical laws, and I argue that the centered Born rule satisfies neither. My final argument is that the CEI’s branch-relative laws cannot explain or constrain an agent’s rational credences in the way that the CEI claims. (shrink)

There is, on a given moral view, an agent-centered restriction against performing acts of a certain type if that view prohibits agents from performing an instance of that act-type even to prevent two or more others from each performing a morally comparable instance of that act-type. The fact that commonsense morality includes many such agent-centered restrictions has been seen by several philosophers as a decisive objection against consequentialism. Despite this, I argue that agent-centered restrictions (...) are more plausibly accommodated within a consequentialist framework than within the more standard side-constraint framework. For I argue that when we combine agent-relative consequentialism with a Kantian theory of value, we arrive at a version of consequentialism, which I call 'Kantsequentialism', that has several advantages over the standard side-constraint approach to accommodating constraints. What’s more, I argue that Kantsequentialism doesn’t have any of the disadvantages that critics of consequentializing have presumed that such a theory must have. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that maximizing act-consequentialism (MAC)—the theory that holds that agents ought always to act so as to produce the best available state of affairs—can accommodate both agent-centered options and supererogatory acts. Thus I will show that MAC can accommodate the view that agents often have the moral option of either pursuing their own personal interests or sacrificing those interests for the sake of the impersonal good. And I will show that MAC can accommodate the (...) idea that certain acts are supererogatory in the sense of not being morally required even though they are what the agent has most moral reason to do. These two theses are surprising in themselves, but even more surprising is how I arrive at them. I argue that anyone generally concerned to accommodate, in some coherent fashion, our pre-theoretical moral intuitions at both the normative and meta-ethical levels will have to give a certain account of agent-centered options and supererogatory acts and that this account is the very one that allows for the maximizing act-consequentialist to accommodate both. So my paper will not only be of interest to those concerned with the tenability of consequentialism, but also to anyone interested in giving a coherent account of our pre-theoretical moral intuitions. (shrink)

I show that centered propositions—also called de se propositions, and usually modeled as sets of centered worlds—pose a serious problem for various versions of Lewis's Principal Principle. The problem, put roughly, is that in scenarios like Elga's `Sleeping Beauty' case, those principles imply that rational agents ought to have obviously irrational credences. To solve the problem, I propose a centered version of the Principal Principle. My version allows centered propositions to be objectively chancy.

This study evaluated how call center agents manage their emotions when interacting with customers with different emotional states. The coping mechanisms employees develop through experience can impact their communication and satisfaction with customer service. A study was conducted using a descriptive-correlational design in three Business Process Outsourcing companies in Cebu City, Philippines. The study aimed to determine employees' agreement and effectiveness in self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. An online sample size calculator was used to gather data, and 150 (...) respondents were chosen out of 243 call center agents. The data was analyzed using simple frequency, percentage, weighted mean, and ANOVA type III. The study indicates that age is crucial in the respondents' self-management (F ratio= 3,146, p= .412). This suggests that BPO employees become better at managing themselves as they get older. Additionally, the study respondents' monthly income significantly impacts their social awareness level (F ratio= 5,144, p= .040). This means that those with higher incomes tend to have greater social awareness than those with lower incomes. The BPO industry should prioritize candidates with high emotional intelligence during hiring. They can better adapt to the fast-paced work environment. Graveyard shift workers should receive higher wages and benefits. Employees should attend workshops on management, leadership, and emotional intelligence. Annual team-building events should also be considered for a positive work environment. (shrink)

Publication date: 14 June 2017 Source: Author: Agnes F. Montalbo, Henry M. Agong This study described the level of work engagement and areas of worklife of 294 call center agents in Ortigas, Pasig City, Philippines. It also investigated the relationship between work engagement and areas of worklife when grouped according to gender, age, tenure at present job and course. In addition, it also explored the differences in the perception of the call center agents when grouped according to the demographic profile. (...) Gamma correlation was carried out to check if correlation exists between the variables of work engagement and variables of areas of worklife. Mood’s median test was conducted to test the differences in the level of engagement and areas of worklife when grouped according to demographic profiles. Results of work engagement showed that those who were aged 31-35 and those who stayed for less than a year in the organization had a high level of dedication. Commerce or Business graduates had a high level of absorption. Results of the areas of worklife showed that majority of the respondents when grouped according to their demographic profile had a match with the variables of fairness, control, values, workload, and community except for the age group of 36 and above who had a mismatch for the variable control. No relationship existed between work engagement and the areas of worklife. Male call center agents are perceived to be more energetic, dedicated and absorbed than female call center agents. Lastly, the areas of control and fairness were reported to differ across all demographic profile of gender, age, tenure at the present job and course. (shrink)

Source: Author: Agnes F. Montalbo The aim of this study was to measure the exhaustion, cynicism and professional efficacy that would determine an individual’s level of burnout. A convenient sample of employees was obtained from different call centers in Metro Manila. The results indicated a high level of exhaustion for the age group of 18-29 years old and for the female respondents. More than half of the respondents were high in cynicism and those who reported a low professional efficacy were (...) mostly females. Age showed a significant relationship with exhaustion and cynicism while tenure at present job showed a significant relationship with professional efficacy. Results implied that working in a call center may lead to employee burnout especially for females and those who are new in their job. ]]>. (shrink)

Preface -/- In the technological civilization of the 21st century, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gradually evolved from an engineering tool into a foundational technological system deeply embedded in social structures, economic systems, and cognitive mechanisms. With the exponential growth of data, the continuous improvement of computational power, and the increasing complexity of algorithmic models, AI not only affects efficiency and productivity, but also plays a structural role in behavior guidance, decision support, and cognitive shaping. -/- However, what has not developed (...) in parallel with technological capability is sufficient reflection on its systemic consequences. The prevailing design paradigms and technological philosophies remain largely grounded in the basic assumption of Human-Centeredness, namely that human needs, preferences, and goals serve as the central basis for system design and optimization. While this paradigm is reasonable in localized and small- to medium-scale systems, its inherent limitations become increasingly evident in large-scale, highly interconnected complex systems with feedback amplification mechanisms. -/- First, from the perspective of cognitive science and behavioral economics, human decision-making is not a strictly rational process, but a complex system influenced by heuristics, contextual dependence, emotions, and incentive mechanisms. Second, from the perspectives of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, the human desire system exhibits strong self-reinforcing characteristics, relying at its core on reward mechanisms (such as dopamine feedback loops), which can easily form continuously reinforced cyclical structures under certain conditions. Thus, humans are not stable rational optimization agents, but rather dynamic, multi-factor-driven complex systems. -/- Against this backdrop, when design logic centered on human preferences is combined with data-driven artificial intelligence systems, mechanisms such as recommendation systems, personalized optimization, and behavioral prediction may continuously amplify existing preferences and latent desires. While this improves user experience and system efficiency, it may also generate a range of unintended macro-level consequences, including but not limited to imbalanced attention allocation, excessive consumption behaviors, information echo chambers, and the exacerbation of structural social inequality. -/- Furthermore, this mechanism of “desire amplification and feedback reinforcement” stands in structural tension with the finiteness inherent in physical and ecological systems. In a real-world context with limited resources and bounded ecological carrying capacity, unbounded demand expansion and continuous growth objectives inevitably encounter systemic constraints. Therefore, the key issue lies not at the level of individual behavioral choices, but at the level of structural compatibility within systems. -/- Based on the above analysis, this book proposes an important theoretical shift: from Human-Centeredness to Dao-Centeredness. Here, “Dao” does not refer to a religious entity, but rather an abstract principle concerning cosmic order, system equilibrium, and natural laws, expressed as “Dao follows nature.” Within this framework, system design is no longer optimized solely for human preferences, but instead incorporates constraints from natural systems, long-term stability, and multi-level equilibrium into a unified consideration. -/- On this basis, the book further introduces the concept of Artificial Wisdom (AW), in contrast to traditional Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Wisdom is not merely a technological upgrade, but a holistic framework that introduces constraint mechanisms and alignment principles into intelligent systems. Its core lies in ensuring that, while system capabilities are enhanced, there is also an intrinsic adherence to natural order, ecological boundaries, and long-term stability. -/- Structurally, Artificial Wisdom can be understood as a multi-layered system comprising: (1) A metaphysical layer: taking “Dao” as the fundamental principle, providing the foundation of value and order; (2) A system mechanism layer: achieving dynamic balance through feedback control, constraint mechanisms, and self-organizing structures; (3) A practical application layer: concrete implementation in artificial intelligence systems, design methodologies, and social governance. -/- The research problem addressed in this book is not a single technical issue, but a comprehensive interdisciplinary inquiry spanning philosophy, cognitive science, design theory, and systems science. Its central concern is: given the potential infinitude of human desire and the clearly bounded nature of the real world, how can a civilizational architecture be constructed that maintains long-term stability and systemic balance? -/- Therefore, the basic proposition of this book can be summarized as follows: many of the challenges faced by modern civilization do not arise solely from technological development itself, but from a mismatch between system design paradigms and underlying philosophical assumptions. When technological capability continues to advance while system constraints and value orientations fail to evolve accordingly, systems tend to amplify internal instabilities, thereby generating structural risks. -/- In this sense, the transition from Human-Centeredness to Dao-Centeredness is not merely a shift in design philosophy, but a paradigm leap at the level of civilization. This transition requires a re-examination of the following questions: • How should the objectives of system optimization be defined • What roles and boundaries should human desire have within systems • What is the relationship between technological systems and natural systems • Should intelligent systems possess self-regulation and long-term orientation capabilities -/- This book attempts to construct a unified analytical framework across these questions. Through a systematic analysis of human nature, desire mechanisms, design paradigms, and artificial intelligence systems, it proposes a possible path for the future: by introducing the principle of “Dao follows nature” into artificial intelligence and system design, to construct an Artificial Wisdom framework characterized by constraint, balance, and sustainability. -/- It should be emphasized that the theoretical framework proposed in this book does not position itself as a strict natural science theory, but rather as an interdisciplinary philosophical–systems synthesis model. Its purpose is to provide a holistic perspective for understanding complex civilizational issues, as well as a possible direction for paradigm transition. -/- Finally, the core intention of this book is to propose a fundamental proposition: -/- When human-centeredness is combined with unbounded technological capability, civilization faces the risk of structural imbalance; only by introducing Dao-centered system constraints and balancing mechanisms can civilization maintain long-term stability in an increasingly complex environment. -/- . (shrink)

Advances in science and technology have added to our insights into the vulnerabilities of human agency as well as to the methods of exploiting them. This has raised the stakes for efforts to clarify the concept and ethics of manipulation. Among these efforts, Robert Noggle’s influencer-centered account of manipulation has been most significant. He defines manipulative acts as those whereby an agent intentionally influences a recipient’s attitudes so that they do not conform as closely as they otherwise would (...) to the pertinent norms and ideals endorsed by the influencer. This provides a relatively simple and in many ways clear definition of manipulation. It sidesteps thorny debates about autonomy, freedom, or practical rationality. It also promises to reveal a conceptual parallel between manipulating and lying, and thus to explain why manipulation is pro tanto wrong. In one respect, however, the account remains ambiguous: It remains unclear whether, and to what extent, it requires that influencers’ beliefs about what is ideal for their recipients to be grounded in some effort on the part of the influencer to identify with or take on the role of her recipient. This paper explains this ambiguity. It argues that influencer-centrism cannot remain indifferent to the validity of an agent’s beliefs about the ideal state of the recipient and provide an identification requirement that would render the whole account plausible and sufficiently determinate. (shrink)

Counterfactual attitudes like imagining, dreaming, and wishing create a problem for the standard formal semantic theory of de re attitude ascriptions. I show how the problem can be avoided if we represent an agent's attitudinal possibilities using "multi-centered worlds", possible worlds with multiple distinguished individuals, each of which represents an individual with whom the agent is acquainted. I then present a compositional semantics for de re ascriptions according to which singular terms are "assignment-sensitive" expressions and attitude verbs (...) are "assignment shifters". (shrink)