In addition, people's judgments are flexible and change easily. For all those who are still developing their virtues, a code such as that of the CCG can help guide action. As noted at the beginning, people are much happier and more productive when their own values are aligned with the values and norms of the company or institution. Therefore, it made sense to align the GCC articles with the values that are necessary for ethical research and to which researchers should aspire.
The values of fairness, respect, care and honesty provide the spirit, motivation and objectives of ethical research. Therefore, the 23 articles that make up the CCG allow the operationalization of securities. This framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless of the outcome, so it allows for the possibility that one may have acted in an ethical manner, even if the outcome is bad. Once its function has been revealed, typists see the equitable division as more just and moral and the equitable division as less just and moral.
Moral correctness, righteousness, honorability, honor, integrity, morality, ethics, principles (high), nobility, righteousness, righteousness, righteousness, righteousness, righteousness, honesty. But why did the TRUST team choose moral values instead of other moral modes that guide action for the CCG? It does not attempt to address the initial sources of moral judgments themselves and, therefore, the disagreement over moral rules. Several previous lines of research show biased moral judgment, including work on hypocrisy, motivated moral reasoning, and partiality. First of all, it may seem cold and impersonal, since it may require actions that are known to cause harm, even if they are strictly in line with a particular moral rule.
This story predicts that moral judgments are stable and fixed, especially because they are isolated from change through motivated reasoning. This is consistent with the hypothesis of strategic morality and shows that eliminating the justification of fairness decreases selfish moral judgment. The most influential version of this approach today is found in the work of the American philosopher John Rawls (1921-200), who argued, following the Kantian line, that just ethical principles are those that would choose free and rational people in an initial situation of equality. The participants' judgments about alternative moral rules depended on the monetary benefits they received from each rule because of their role as typists or verifiers.
If the participants' judgments about equality and equity are explained exclusively by stable provisions based on different genes, development, personality, metaphors, social identities, political affiliations, etc., then their personal benefits will not affect moral judgment. They disagree about what rules apply, for example, whether contraception or interest-bearing loans are morally wrong. Even so, people are expected to bias their moral arguments within these restrictions, just as professional negotiators are expected to negotiate hard. First, research on moral hypocrisy focuses on the difference between moral judgment and real behavior.