 |
|
|
|||||
Virtues such as compassion, patience, and self-control may be beneficial not only for others but also for oneself, according to new research my team and I published in the Journal of Personality in December 2025. Philosophers from Aristotle to al-Frb, a 10th-century scholar in what is now Iraq, have argued that virtue is vital for well-being. Yet others, such as Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, have argued the opposite: Virtue offers no benefit to oneself and is good only for others. This second theory has inspired a lot of research in contemporary psychology, which often sees morality and self-interest as fundamentally opposed. Many studies have found that generosity is associated with happiness, and that encouraging people to practice kindness increases their well-being. But other virtues seem less enjoyable. For example, a compassionate person wants to alleviate suffering or misfortune, but that requires there be suffering or misfortune. Patience is possible only when something irritating or difficult is happening. And self-control involves forgoing ones desires or persisting with something difficult. Could these kinds of virtues really be good for you? My colleagues and I investigated this question in two studies, using two different methods to zoom in on specific moments in peoples daily lives. Our goal was to assess the degree to which, in those moments, they were compassionate, patient, and self-controlled. We also assessed their level of well-being: how pleasant or unpleasant they felt, and whether they found their activities meaningful. One study, with adolescents, used the experience sampling method, in which people answer questions at random intervals throughout the day. The other, studying adults, used the day reconstruction method, in which people answer questions about the previous day. All told, we examined 43,164 moments from 1,218 people. During situations that offer opportunities to act with compassion, patience, and self-controlencountering someone in need, for example, or dealing with a difficult personpeople tend to experience more unpleasant feelings and fewer pleasant ones than in other situations. However, we found that exercising these three virtues seems to help people cope. People who are habitually more compassionate, patient, and self-controlled tend to experience better well-being. And when people display more compassion, patience, and self-control than usual, they tend to feel better than they usually do. In short, our results contradicted the theory that virtue is good for others and bad for the self. They were consistent with the theory that virtue promotes well-being. Why it matters These studies tested the predictions of two venerable, highly influential theories about the relationship between morality and well-being. In doing so, they offered new insights into one of the most fundamental questions debated in philosophy, psychology, and everyday life. Moreover, in the scientific study of morality, lots of research has examined how people form moral judgments and how outside forces shape a persons moral behavior. Yet some researchers have argued that this should be complemented by research on moral traits and how these are integrated into the whole person. By focusing on traits such as patience, compassion, and self-control and their roles in peoples daily lives, our studies contribute to the emerging science of virtue. What still isnt known One open question for future research is whether virtues such as compassion, patience, and self-control are associated with better well-being only under certain conditions. For example, perhaps things look different depending on ones stage of life or in different parts of the world. Our studies were not randomized experiments. It is possible that the associations we observed are explained by another factorsomething that increases well-being while simultaneously increasing compassion, patience, and self-control. Or maybe well-being affects virtue, instead of the other way around. Future research could help clarify the causal relationships. One particularly interesting possibility is that there might be a virtuous cycle: Perhaps virtue tends to promote well-being, and well-being, in turn, tends to promote virtue. If so, it would be extremely valuable to learn how to help people kick-start that cycle. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Michael Prinzing is a research and assessment scholar at Wake Forest University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
A federal judge said Tuesday that a nearly completed Massachusetts offshore wind project can continue, as the industry successfully challenges the Trump administration in court. At U.S. District Court in Boston, Judge Brian Murphy halted the administration’s stop work order for Vineyard Wind, citing the potential economic losses from the delays and the developers’ likelihood of success on their claims. Vineyard Wind is one of five big offshore wind projects on the East Coast that the Trump administration froze days before Christmas, citing national security concerns and the fourth that has since been allowed to go forward. A spokesperson for the company, Craig Gilvarg, said in a statement that it would work with the Administration to understand the matters raised in the Order. Vineyard Wind will focus on working in coordination with its contractors, the federal government, and other relevant stakeholders and authorities to safely restart activities, as it continues to deliver a critical source of new power to the New England region, Gilvarg added. Developers and states sued seeking to block the administration’s order. Prior to Vineyard Wind’s hearing, federal judges had allowed three of the five to restart construction: the Revolution Wind project for Rhode Island and Connecticut by Danish company Orsted, the Empire Wind project for New York by Norwegian company Equinor, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind for Virginia by Dominion Energy Virginia. Those three judges essentially concluded that the government did not show that the national security risk is so imminent that construction must halt, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond Law School professor who has been following the lawsuits. Orsted is also suing over the administration halting its Sunrise Wind project for New York the fifth paused project but has not had a hearing yet. Vineyard Wind is a joint venture between Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, located 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket, Massachusetts. It is 95% complete and partially operational, able to produce nearly 600 megawatts of power for the New England electric grid, according to the complaint. Before the pause, it was on track to be complete by the end of March, with 62 turbines generating a total of 800 megawatts. That is enough clean electricity to power about 400,000 homes. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the completion of this project is essential to ensuring the state can lower costs, meet rising energy demand, advance its climate goals and sustain thousands of good-paying jobs. U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, welcomed the judge’s ruling. This stay is an important step in the process to fight back against the Trump administrations lawless attacks against our union jobs, grid security, and energy affordability, Markey said in a statement. Vineyard Wind 1 is currently delivering affordable and reliable power into our grid and has the permits, financing, and approval to deliver even more. Shutting off Vineyard Wind 1 would kill thousands of local union jobs, prevent power from reaching 400,000 homes, and cause us to lose out on $3 billion of energy savings.” The administration’s announcement that paused construction did not reveal specifics about its national security concerns. But in a court filing, Matthew Giacona, acting director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said he reviewed classified documents in November that discussed direct impacts to national security that arise from operating offshore wind projects near early warning monitoring and radar systems. Giacona said he determined the ongoing activities for the Vineyard Wind project did not adequately provide for the protection of national security interests, absent potential mitigation measures. Given its nearly complete status, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management decided to allow Vineyard Wind to continue partially operating during the suspension period while it consulted with defense officials and the owners, Giacona said. But he said he is not aware of any measures that would mitigate the national security risks. Trump has targeted offshore wind power President Donald Trump has targeted offshore wind from his first days back in the White House, recently calling wind farms losers that lose money, destroy the landscape and kill birds. Research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shows that states with the most utility-scale wind and solar often have low electricity prices, supported by federal tax incentives. However, states with aggressive, binding programs to mandate more renewable energy have seen prices increase as a result of those policies, according to the study. Turbines, like all infrastructure, can pose a risk to birds. The National Audubon Society, which is dedicated to the conservation of birds, thinks developers can manage these risks and climate change is a greater threat. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers has said the construction pause is meant to protect the national security of the American people and Trump has been clear that wind energy is the scam of the century.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the Vineyard Wind project, specifically, because of a blade failure. Fiberglass fragments of a blade broke apart and began washing onto Nantucket beaches in July 2024 during the peak of tourist season. Manufacturer GE Vernova agreed to pay $10.5 million in a settlement to compensate island businesses that suffered losses. Kennedys family famously opposed an earlier failed wind project not far from the familys Cape Cod estate. ___ The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Jennifer McDermott and Michael Casey, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
When the Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing over President Donald Trump’s tariffs, a similarly rapid resolution seemed possible.After all, Trump’s lawyers told the court that speed was of the essence on an issue central to the Republican president’s economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that the “longer a final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption.”But nearly three months have elapsed since arguments in the closely watched case, and the court isn’t scheduled to meet in public for more than three weeks.No one knows for sure what’s going on among the nine justices, several of whom expressed skepticism about the tariffs’ legality at arguments in November. But the timeline for deciding the case now looks more or less typical and could reflect the normal back-and-forth that occurs not just in the biggest cases but in almost all the disputes the justices hear.Several Supreme Court practitioners and law professors scoffed at the idea the justices are dragging their feet on tariffs, putting off a potentially uncomfortable ruling against Trump.“People suspect this kind of thing from time to time, but I am not aware of instances in which we have more than speculation,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.The timeframe alone also doesn’t point to one outcome or the other.One possible explanation, said Carter Phillips, a lawyer with 91 arguments before the high court, “is that the court is more evenly divided than appeared to be the case at oral argument and the fifth vote is wavering.”Even if the majority opinion has been drafted and more or less agreed to by five or more members of the court, a separate opinion, probably in dissent, could slow things down, Phillips said.Just last week, the court issued two opinions in cases that were argued in October. All nine justices agreed with the outcome, a situation that typically allows decisions to be issued relatively quickly. But a separate opinion in each case probably delayed the decision.The court is generally moving more slowly in argued cases, perhaps because of the flood of emergency appeals the Trump administration has brought to the justices. The first argued case wasn’t decided until January this year. Typically, that happens in December, if not November.Over the last 20 years, the average turnaround time for a Supreme Court opinion was just over three months, according to data gathered by Adam Feldman, creator of Empirical SCOTUS. The timeline has increased in recent years, with the court releasing half or more of its cases in June.Decision times can vary widely. The court can move quickly, especially in cases with hard external deadlines: The landmark Bush v. Gore case that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election took just over a day. The recent case over TikTok took seven days.On the higher end, when the justices are on their own timelines, cases can take much longer to resolve. Gundy v. U.S., a case argued in 2018 about how the sex offender registry is administered, took more than eight months to be decided.Major decisions on expanding gun rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and ending affirmative action in college admissions were handed down six to eight months after the cases were argued.Also undecided so far is a second major case in which the court sped up its pace over redistricting in Louisiana and the future of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.The tariffs case took on added urgency because the consequences of the Trump administration’s policy were playing out in real time, in ways that have been both positive and negative.“Like many, I had hoped that the Supreme would rush the decision out,” said Marc Busch, an expert on international trade policy and law at Georgetown University. “But it’s not a surprise in the sense that they have until June and lots of issues to work through.”The separation of powers questions central to the case are complicated. Whatever the majority decides, there will likely be a dissent and both sides will be carefully calibrating their writing.“It is the language at the end of the day that’s going to make this more or less meaningful,” he said.Meanwhile, as the justices weigh the case, Trump continues to invoke the threat of tariffs, extol their virtues and refer to the case as the court’s most important.“I would hope, like a lot of people, the justices have been watching the tariff threats over Greenland and realize the gravity of this moment,” Busch said. Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court. Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||