"Field theory originated when Michael Faraday tried to explain the observation of field lines between two poles of a magnet. Faraday said that a “field” is caused by the tension that exists between the two poles.
Field theory has been applied in many diverse areas from gravity (Einstein) to personality theory (Lewin). Robert S. Hartman [in his doctoral dissertation] ... applied field theory to ethics.
Hartman says that the two poles in ethics are the “actual” and the “ideal.” There is always a “tension” that exists between the actual and the ideal. According to Hartman, the ethical course of action is simply to attempt to transform the actual into the ideal. For example, whenever we are experiencing tension in dealing with a problem or a person, the ethical course of action is to seek the ideal state. When the actual is transformed into the ideal, the tension no longer exists. This shows me that I should not dread having problems, as each problem gives me the opportunity to exercise the mental and physical muscles needed to transform a situation from one state into the other. This is also how we create who we are. "
To explain the last part a bit further, Hartman came up with the definition of "good" that I wrote about in another thread. Based upon this breakthrough he went on to derive three basic dimensions of value - on a spectrum which depends on how much of our attention and focus we give whatever we choose to value. If we give something the maximum focus, let us speak of this as In-Value. Whenever we give something this much attention we are, in a sense, beginning to get involved with it. If it is a person, when we value that way we are coming to identify in some way with this person, we may start to bond with him or her when we give that party so much of our attention. We can also In-Value ourselves; when we do this we are said to have "self respect."
The application of this dimension of value to persons produces a department of study we have named Ethics. And "value" by Dr. Hartman's axiom is the fulfillment of the definition of whatever is being valued. For example a good (or highly valuable) book - to the valuer - is one that has everything a book should have in his/her ideal picture of a book The actual book he calls "good" fulfills his ideal of what a "book" is supposed to be!
In the same way, a morally good person is one who fulfills his own singular definition of himself, who is, what people would describe as "genuine", "sincere", "honest", "has integrity", "self-respect", and so on. - one who is who and what he is and does not pretend to be who and what he is not. Abraham Maslow has referred to such an individual as "a self-actualizing" person.`
To say a bit more about the Moore-Hartman breakthrough...
G. E. Moore got as far as saying that "good" is not like other descriptive adjectives, say, "round" or "tall"; it is not a primary property like those, or like "red," but somehow it "depends on properties." That is as far as he was able to see.
R. S. Hartman, who had been studying Russell's methods of analysis, and who liked the latter's Theory of Types as a tool of Logic, made the eventual breakthrough. [These days the Type Theory survives in Alonzo Church's Higher-Order Logic, which you can read about on Wiki.] Hartman spent a year examining every usage of "good" listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, attempting to discern what they all had in common. Finally he had an epiphany
What Hartman's insight achieved you can discern in the following narrative:
Joe and Bill have an appointment to go some conference together although they live far apart.
Joe phones Bill and says to him: Meet me in that big parking lot in front of NewTown Mall, by my car, and we will make the trip in my car to the conference. Okay?
Bill: Sure! That will save gas. By the way, how will I recognize your car? What does it look like?
Now if Joe answered "It is the turquoise and yellow Chevy; no one else has a paint-job like mine." Bill would have very little trouble finding it.
But Joe replied instead: "It's a good car !!" Bill was at a loss; he couldn't find the car.
Now, what is the difference?? In both cases an accurate description was given. How does "good" differ from "turquoise and yellow"?
The answer is that the color is a primary property, while "good" is a secondary property: it is a property-of-properties. It is in fact a quantifier of qualities. That was Hartman's discovery.
By "qualities" I mean either physical properties or mental ones (attributes). Attributes are actually property names. {Synonyms for names are: designators, labels, signs.} A concept has three components, a name, a meaning (for purposes of Logic this is a set of attributes, or predicates) and an application (which is a set of members of the class - the class named by the concept) In the case of an individual it is a unit-class. For a unique individual (a person) he is 'in a class by himself.'
What did Joe mean when he said "It is a good car!" He meant it has doors and windows, and when you step on the brake, it brakes; and when you step on the accelerator, it accelerates; etc.
Now you may think of a hot-rod when you say "car." And I might not. But whatever picture one has of a car, if this actual car has those features, one is likely to call it a "good" one.
If anything I said above is not clear, please let me know and I will strive to clarify it.
Comments? ... Questions? ...Your views on this Field Theory?