Following Bacon's advice, the scientific search for the formal cause of things is now replaced by the search for " laws of nature" or " laws of physics" in all scientific thinking. To use Aristotle's well-known terminology these are descriptions of efficient cause, and not formal cause or final cause. It means modern science limits its hypothesizing about non-physical things to the assumption that there are regularities to the ways of all things which do not change. The Ashtavakra Gita, credited to Aṣṭāvakra, examines the metaphysical nature of existence and the meaning of individual freedom, presenting its thesis that there is only one Supreme Reality (Brahman), the entirety of universe is oneness and manifestation of this reality, everything is interconnected, all Self ( Atman, soul) are part of that one, and that individual freedom is not the end point but a given, a starting point, innate. [16] Operationalizations of purity were classified either as a “single operationalization” or as a “chimera operationalization.” Single operationalizations involved sets of scale items or vignettes in which it was clear that all items or vignettes tapped into one singular construct—purity is “x.” For example, the scale items developed by Boer and Fischer (2013) to measure purity all tap respect for God. They explain that their items to assess purity included “general religiosity, religious experiences, and beliefs or the evaluation of religious behaviors, such as church attendance” (p. 1120). Similarly, Casciaro and colleagues (2014) measured purity solely based on pathogen avoidance by having participants complete a task that involved turning word fragments into meaningful words, which could be completed as words related to physical cleansing: “W _ _ H, S H _ _ E R, and S _ _ P” (p. 714).

Harvey, Peter (1990), An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, Cambridge University Press, p. 54, ISBN 978-0521313339 A definition was coded as “implicitly contra-harm” if it directly contrasted purity violations with harm violations without directly stating that purity violations were different from or absent of harm. These definitions typically come from more recent purity research that relies upon earlier works that explicitly contrast purity and harm as their theoretical foundation. For instance, McAdams and colleagues (2008) described purity as “corruption, contamination, defilement, imperfection, or other aspects of human life that deviate from that which is sacred, pure, or perfect” and then contrasted these to harm violations defined as “concern for protecting people from pain, injury, abuse, poverty, or some other form of physical or psychological suffering” (p. 986). Furthermore, McAdams uses Haidt’s (2007) assertion of moral intuitions as “evolved mechanism[s] or learning module[s]” as a starting point for their theoretical understanding of these moral concerns (p. 985). Although McAdams and colleagues did not explicitly describe purity as contra-harm, by building off previous literature which does and directly juxtaposing their definition of purity violations in contrast to a definition of harmful violations, they imply that purity is distinct from and a foil to harm. Similarly, Glenn and colleagues (2009) defined purity as “representing the moral ideal of living in an elevated, noble, and less carnal way, based on intuitions about divinity, feelings of moral disgust, and purity of body, mind and soul” and harm as “representing concerns about violence and the suffering of others, including compassion and care” (p. 386). Again, although Glenn did not explicitly state that purity violations are contra-harm, they imply this by juxtaposing purity violations to harm violations and citing works that support “distinct moral foundations” (p. 386) as the theoretical starting point (i.e., Graham et al., 2009). It is difficult to draw inferences about psychological concepts in the first place, but only one inference can be made about negative sets: that the key missing feature (e.g., harm) is not necessary for defining it (e.g., purity). One can see evidence for this inference in moral psychology, where researchers have used “harmless” purity violations to argue that harm is not necessary for moral condemnation ( Haidt, 2001; Haidt et al., 2000). Because we all have experience with foods that are easily contaminated, we come to equate purity and cleanliness with goodness in the physical domain. [. . .] experiences in the physical world then form the basis (in many cultures) of conceptual schemes about moral purity—for example, that children start off in a state of purity and innocence but can be corrupted by a single exposure to sex, violence, drugs, homosexuality, or the devil. ( Haidt, 2001, p. 825)Unfortunately, many of purity’s explanations and definitions are tautological, explaining purity-related questions by invoking the concept of purity or impurity. Consider this quote from a classic paper on intuitionism:

Divinity/purity violations. In these cases, a person disrespects the sacredness of God ” ( Rozin et al., 1999, p. 576) Having disconnected the term "law of nature" from the original medieval metaphor of human-made law, the term "law of nature" is now used less than in early modern times.

Living Ethically in Compromised Times

Whether it was intended or not, Aristotle's inquiries into this subject were long felt to have resolved the discussion about nature in favor of one solution. In this account, there are four different types of cause: Our empirical investigation suggests that relative to harm and loyalty, purity is especially heterogenous and disconnected from its theoretical definitions. Our systematic review suggests a reason for these features: the concept of purity in moral psychology is a contra-chimera. The substantial variability in how purity has been defined within and across the 158 moral purity papers in our corpus supports the idea that contra (“negative”) definitions are rather variable because they are unbounded by constraints beyond being not harmful. Although the concept of purity is referenced in many religious and moral codes, it was widely ignored in early moral psychology research, which focused on principles of justice ( Kohlberg, 1981) and causing and preventing physical harm ( Turiel, 1983). The superstitious rituals and taboos that fell under the mantle of purity were discounted as matters of mere religious or social convention ( Kohlberg, 1981; Turiel et al., 1987).