Robert has expressed a number of opinions, many of which resonate well for
me, and some of which leave me unsatisfied.
For example, he says, "Some of the discussion on this topic appears to
have values dangling, unconnected to behaviour, or in fact anything else
outside of the internal world of the individual."
Yes, values are expressed through behavior. I agree wholeheartedly with
that.
He also says, "In my view, we live in a society that promulgates
rationalizations for violating core values, and has demeaned the meaning
of values and principles. They are often seen as disposable and very
situational. Granted that there is a truth that values are applied
situationally."
Again, I tend to agree with this opinion that in American society at
least, we are tending to excuse violations of values, and allow
rationalizations. I can't speak for other cultures.
Then Robert leaps too far at least for me, when he says, "However, to say
that we hold universal values, but often don't act consistent with those
values, means that the concept of values is virtually meaningless "out
there" where people live and behave. It makes values largely irrelevant to
individuals and organizations."
This is similar to opinions about universal values not existing unless
each and every person espouses them. a valid alternative, in my mind
could be that a value would be universal if all of the major governing
organizations -- churches, states, and perhaps philosophies -- espoused
them.
To suggest analogies that are removed a bit from values, if a person
generally shows good judgement, even if not always, then we acknowledge
that the person generally shows good judgement. We count on that person
to display good judgement. A person who is generally a good parent or a
good manager, is so regarded, even if they show occasional lapses.
Similarly, if a person generally is kind, then we tend to regard that
person as a kind person. Examples of unkindness would make us wonder why
the person was acting out of character, but unless there were many
examples, we would still regard that person as kind. A person can have
high integrity, and yet, fall down from time to time. Thus, to say, as
Robert later says, that values do not explain anything is going a bit far.
We all know people who act generally in accord with their values.
However, at the same time, values do not explain everything. There are
many reasons for this. Values are sometimes situational. Values may be
in conflict. Our values may not be fully clarified. Other pressures
overwhelm them. Nevertheless, values are connected to behaviors, and
values can be used to explain behaviors, even though they do not explain
all behaviors.
There is also a complementarity between expressed values and values in
action. We think we believe in what we express as our values. How we act
may be different than that. We need to pay attention to our actions to
see us as others see us.
Values are in some ways analogous to Economics. Economics is an abstract
construct that explains some events in its field, but does not explain all
events. Does this mean that economics does not exist? Certainly not.
Does it mean there is no value to discussing and understanding economics?
Certainly not. Should we still try to understand the first principles of
economics? Of course. With better understanding may come better a
ability to explain.
Values are defined (Webster's New World dictionary, 1964) as acts,
customs, institutions regarded in a particularly favorable way by a people
or ethnic group. Is there absolutely no value that is common to virtually
all human beings? Hard to believe, but certainly possible.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>