The question raised is not only whether shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge, but also if personal knowledge can shape shared knowledge. However, it seems to me that it is implied that shared knowledge cannot always shape personal knowledge and vice versa. Within the framework of this discussion, I would like to define shared knowledge as the product of one or more individual, a fact or knowledge shared within a group. It can also be defined as knowledge by description which “always involve some knowledge of truths as its source and ground” (Russell 72–3). As for personal knowledge, it is first-hand experience or knowledge relating to ones’ values, family background, and so on. It can also be explained by knowledge by acquaintance
…show more content…
Ethics is an area of knowledge that justifies what is wrong and right, it considers the moral obligations behind our behaviour and actions. A well-known theory in the fields of Ethics is utilitarianism which argues “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 10). Good actions are actions that promote happiness, and if the amount of happiness caused by an action is greater than the amount lost, the action is good. My personal knowledge of moral obligations is not affected by utilitarianism as I do not consider the outcome of happiness. Similarly, personal knowledge does not always shape shared knowledge as my moral obligations cannot shape shared moral obligations. An example would be lying. A doctor, lying to a patient’s family to prevent them from getting upset would be unethical based on my moral obligations but ethical in utilitarianism. I cannot shape shared knowledge with my moral obligations, demonstrating that there are limitations between the bidirectional relationship of shared and personal knowledge. Additionally, one must note that even though utilitarianism exists, it is not the only ethical …show more content…
I always thought that girls are expected to know how to cook. This seemed to be personal knowledge, but it is indeed shared knowledge. Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory suggests that a child will first develop gender identity, which is to label its own sex. Afterwards, it is gender stability where a child knows that the gender will not change over time by learning their appearance. Lastly, is gender constancy which is to recognise a gender regardless of appearance. Then, the child will encounter gender socialisation through family, media, peers and education. Repeated socialisation over time will make one believe that it is their personal knowledge instead of following gender roles. My grandparents and parents’ behaviour implied that women must learn to cook. Even in books and television, we are often exposed to the message that women must cook which became our personal knowledge. There is a famous Chinese saying for women which can roughly be translated to: “ diligent enough to make good cuisine and elegant enough to show around to the guests”. This basically means women must excel in housework and socialising, which is the maxim of women in Chinese society. There is much knowledge which we think is personal, but instead is shared knowledge. This shows that it is difficult to distinguish the two forms of knowledge and the
Ethics is an area of knowledge that justifies what is wrong and right, it considers the moral obligations behind our behaviour and actions. A well-known theory in the fields of Ethics is utilitarianism which argues “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 10). Good actions are actions that promote happiness, and if the amount of happiness caused by an action is greater than the amount lost, the action is good. My personal knowledge of moral obligations is not affected by utilitarianism as I do not consider the outcome of happiness. Similarly, personal knowledge does not always shape shared knowledge as my moral obligations cannot shape shared moral obligations. An example would be lying. A doctor, lying to a patient’s family to prevent them from getting upset would be unethical based on my moral obligations but ethical in utilitarianism. I cannot shape shared knowledge with my moral obligations, demonstrating that there are limitations between the bidirectional relationship of shared and personal knowledge. Additionally, one must note that even though utilitarianism exists, it is not the only ethical …show more content…
I always thought that girls are expected to know how to cook. This seemed to be personal knowledge, but it is indeed shared knowledge. Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory suggests that a child will first develop gender identity, which is to label its own sex. Afterwards, it is gender stability where a child knows that the gender will not change over time by learning their appearance. Lastly, is gender constancy which is to recognise a gender regardless of appearance. Then, the child will encounter gender socialisation through family, media, peers and education. Repeated socialisation over time will make one believe that it is their personal knowledge instead of following gender roles. My grandparents and parents’ behaviour implied that women must learn to cook. Even in books and television, we are often exposed to the message that women must cook which became our personal knowledge. There is a famous Chinese saying for women which can roughly be translated to: “ diligent enough to make good cuisine and elegant enough to show around to the guests”. This basically means women must excel in housework and socialising, which is the maxim of women in Chinese society. There is much knowledge which we think is personal, but instead is shared knowledge. This shows that it is difficult to distinguish the two forms of knowledge and the