The Source of Values

Well, guess I spoke too soon in my last post... Clemson lost. End of discussion. Anyway, if you haven't done so already, I'd recommend reading the post below this before reading this one. Previously, I rambled on a bit about values. Perhaps a more interesting topic is the source of values. This is something that I've had discussions with friends on before and there's just no way I can piece together all my thoughts on the topic in one sitting, so perhaps I'll revisit the topic another time.

So where do values come from? When I refer to values here, I'm thinking about the values that people live by. Are people born with values or do they learn them? The last time I debated this topic, I leaned towards the idea that people are born with a very basic value set. In other words, when someone is born, do they have a basic idea of right and wrong? This is a debate that is almost impossible to settle! To settle this debate, one would have to take a human being at birth and place them in solitude for a few years until they were old enough to make conscious moral (or immoral) choices. Even then, you would have to take into account the potential effects of such an extended period of solitary confinement. After further thought, I think that more than likely people are NOT born with any sort of value set. HOWEVER.... I do believe that people instinctively have a desire to do what is "good" over what is "evil." Human beings in my opinion must be taught values. What we are born with , I believe, is the desire to do what we are taught is right in the absence of any motivating factors. If there is no benefit to doing what is "wrong" over what is "right", I believe that people will always do what is "right". The problem is, when is this ever the case? Evil exists for a reason, and that reason is because being evil is easier than being good. In light of this, the question we should be concerned about at this point is not whether people are born with values or whether they learn values... but HOW they learn values.

Values are primarily learned through two different perspectives: the rule of law and religion. Nearly everyone learns values through the rule of law, whether it be the sole method of instruction or in addition to religion. This method says "If you [fill in the blank] then [fill in the blank] will be the consequence." If you steal you will go to jail. If you eat a cookie before dinner you will get a spanking. If you cheat on a test you will get an F. This method is necessary, but inadequate by itself. This method encourages individuals to avoid poor behavior unless they know they can't get caught. For some people, this is all they ever need because they have a deep fear of what would happen in the remote chance they got caught. Some people would just never take the chance. While this still results in good behavior, that person's value system is fairly shallow.

Religious values are taught through a variety of methods. Many forms of religious teachings follow the same approach as the rule of law, focusing on fear. The difference here is that many people who would take chances without religious values are now much more hesitant because they believe/know that there is a higher being "watching" them and that there are eternal consequences for evil deeds. Still, a shallow value system in my opinion, but a more solid one. Other religious values are taught through the form of love. Instead of teaching what to avoid, this method teaches "Do [insert action] out of love for others (or for some kind of eternal benefit). This creates a much deeper value system I believe because it instills in people the desire to do good just for the sake of doing good. Even in the absence of consequences for negative actions, people with this type of upbringing are more likely to "do the right thing." However, how values are taught is not everything. Also very important is how values are reinforced.

Many of you may be thinking that I'm implying that people who aren't religious can't have deep, solid value sets. Absolutely false. I believe that if people learn values through a religion rather than through other sources, they're off to a better start. However, proper reinforcement can easily make up lost ground. I think that values can be reinforced both by logic and by experience. I've come to the realization that even religion alone often cannot prepare a person for real world situations. As I said in my previous blog, anyone can live in a cave for eternity and follow the Ten Commandments. Something greater is needed to equip a large proportion of human beings for real world situations.

Logic is a great value reinforcement tool. Logic is what separates human beings from animals. Teaching someone by the 'rule of law' method without logical reinforcement is no different from training a dog. What an insult to the intelligence of an individual! Animals often disobey rules knowingly when they know they aren't being observed. People are no different. When someone is instilled with a value set, they must be taught not only the consequences of negative behavior, but the consequences of positive behavior as well! People must understand how the consequences of their actions can affect others and how it can affect them in the long term.

Experience is another great reinforcement tool. In fact, it often is the only guaranteed method. Sure, some people take their values seriously and would not compromise those values under any circumstances. However, I think a lack of experience (and/or logic in many cases) is a primary reason that we find people like "Person A" in my previous blog... people that share our value systems but can't be trusted to necessarily stick to those values. Unfortunately, we can't ever know for sure how we will react to a situation until we have been there. We can't say we would never steal until we have been in a situation where we felt the need to steal. We can never say we would never cheat on a significant other until we have had to face temptation. We are not fully equipped to fight temptations such as those until we've been there and we know what feelings we have to be able to conquer and we fully understand the potential consequences of our actions because we've had to think about them first-hand. Think about it as a vaccine... our bodies are not equipped to fight many diseases until it is exposed to them... through vaccines. Generally, trace amounts of virus in a vaccine do not get us sick, but we're exposed to them and our immune system has an opportunity to prepare.

I think many people are too sheltered. Many parents keep kids in private school or home school their children to avoid sending them to public schools. Some people avoid being around alcohol because they don't want to get drunk. There are countless other examples. Sure, sometimes there are valid reasons to avoid public school. Some public schools are despicable and genuinely dangerous. However, most public schools are not. So your child avoids the temptations found in public schools and grows up with perfect behavior. What happens when they graduate and get into the "real world?" They are often not as well equipped to handle the stresses and temptations that you find in everyday life because they were sheltered growing up. Who is the stronger person, the person who goes to bars and drinks but always avoids the "wrong" decisions or the person who avoids alcohol altogether but would succumb to poor decisions if they did happen to drink? Sure, some people avoid situations with alcohol not out of fear, but simply lack of interest. This statement does not apply to those people.

Lastly, but in a sense similar to the topic of experience, I believe that people should be deeply entrenched in the complex social structure that human beings have developed to ensure proper behavior. The more social connections an individual has, the higher the consequences of inappropriate behavior. Someone with only a few friends has much less to lose from abandoning their values then someone with a large group of friends. Quiet individuals with few active friend connections are the ones that have the highest likelihood of being dangerous, even those that appear perfectly safe and moral on the outside.

I've started to cover a host of topics that would probably be more appropriate covered in multiple other posts, and hopefully this isn't too much to ponder in one sitting, but let me try to wrap this up. I believe human beings have a basic desire to do what is right, but they are not born with a knowledge of right and wrong. They must be taught their moral standards, always through the 'rule of law' but preferably in combination with a religious upbringing to increase the desire to follow those values. These values must then be reinforced through both logic and experience. A lack of reinforcement could lead to the appearance of strong values, but in reality an individual who in the face of temptation in new circumstances fails to live up to their alleged standards, especially in the absence of a well-connected social structure.