Values-Analysis Guide

1. Value. The concept of value is familiar to all of us. It appears whenever we ask the question: "What is something worth?" (Often, we raise this question as an economic concern!) A value is a standard people use to judge the worth of objects, experiences, ideas, and actions. Any standard that provides a basis for human action is a value. A value is something that is important enough to someone that s/he does something about it. Therefore, anything can be a value. A value might consist of an ethical trait, an idea, or an object. To summarize: a value is anything that leads to an action by some human being. People act the way they do because of their values, and actions always reveal values. Here are four principles for identifying values:

1. First Principle. If anything can be a value, the way we discover values is to look at people's actions. VALUE IS A CONCEPT THAT REFERS TO ACTIONS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
2. Second Principle. We must distinguish between the ways in which values are shaped and the ways in which they are demonstrated. Values are shaped by people's needs (basic feelings and desires), the situations in which they find themselves, the projects they undertake, and the beliefs they hold. However, people demonstrate their values by what they do more than by what they say or think or believe or observe or hear. Since actions count more than beliefs, people may fool themselves by thinking their values are what they believe rather than what they do. For most people, there is a gap between actions (which demonstrate "real" values) and beliefs (which demonstrate "ideal" values).
3. Third Principle. Applying the action principle to artifacts from the past is simple. Anything handed down to us from the past is itself an action. If a person writes something, that writing constitutes an action. We can read it and determine the values that brought it into being. The same thing applies to music and art. They are the products of actions. We loosely call these sorts of things "primary" sources. A primary source is something that comes to us from the past.
4. Fourth Principle. The final principle of identifying values -- and this applies as well to giving examples of values -- is that values only occur in particular situations as a person does some action. You can't detect a value when there's nothing to detect. We can call this principle the situation principle. It reminds us to never talk about a value apart from some description of a specific action.

2. Value-System. Although values are often discussed in isolation, they never exist in isolation. Values exist in systems. A value-system is a cluster of values that are reasonably consistent with one another. The individual values in a system interact with each other through various relationships. The importance of a value always depends on its relationships to other values. The means that analysis of values must consider the interplay of at least two values. Discussing one value cannot reveal anything significant about the value. As values are enacted through value-systems, they reveal the perspectives, or basic attitudes, people hold toward others. Here are three characteristics of value-systems:

1. First Characteristic: Consistency of the Values in the System. Values in a system are reasonably, not totally, consistent. Even an individual cannot (usually) live by a totally consistent value-system, and groups identified by value-systems show greater variances than individuals. However, the inconsistency occurs within a fairly narrow range.
2. Second Characteristic: Relative Importance of the Values in the System. Values have relative, not absolute, importance. Their role in the actions generated by the value-system depends on their relationships to each other as acted out in specific situations. Such relationships are easily seen when a person makes an either-or choice. The value chosen becomes more important, and the value rejected becomes less important. But the rejected value may remain as part of the system because it will be chosen in different circumstances.
3. Third Characteristic: Hierarchy of the Values in the System. The values in a particular value-system may be diagrammed as a pyramid. We usually think of hierarchy in terms of higher and lower. Frequent actions based on a value put the value higher in the system than values that are rarely acted on. Often, the difference between actions and beliefs plays a crucial role in determining the location of values in a system. Another issue of relevance to the question of hierarchy is the problem we frequently encounter in determining whether one value is higher than another. Here's where the model of a pyramid comes in handy. When you can't decide on the question of higher-lower, you can just put the values side by side.

Relationships

We've said that values never exist in isolation. Life just isn't that simple. When people or groups act, they always act on the basis of more than one value at a time. We use the term relationship to refer to the way in which two or more values interact with each other. You need to focus on this use of the term, for "relationship" often means other things. For us, it always describes some connection between values. The one principle to keep in mind when identifying relationships is: Relationships between Values Only Occur in Particular Situations. Two values in themselves do not have a "relationship" with each other. They only relate when they are connected to each other by the actions of a person or group in some specific circumstance. The only way to explain or give an example of a relationship is to look at some action. Once you observe and describe an action, you can identify the values on which the action is based. Then (and only then) you can determine how they are connected as shown by the action. (Remember that a "primary" source is an action, so you can discuss the relationships of values in, or even between, "primary" sources.)

1. Integrating Relationship. In this relationship, one of the values acted out in a situation is higher (worth more) than the other. The higher value "integrates" (holds together) the other value with itself. Or we could say it pulls the other to itself. An example could be a person who drinks a coke with ice. The value of the coke integrates the value of the ice, because the coke is more important than the ice. So the person who likes ice in the coke might settle for an "ice-cold" coke. But settling for the ice would be drinking ice-water, an entirely different action.

2. Utilitarian Relationship. If an integrating relationship assesses the connection between two unequal but compatible values from the point-of-view of the higher value, a utilitarian relationship provides one way of assessing the connection from the point-of-view of the lower value. "Utilitarian" means "useful for some purpose." In a utilitarian relationship the lower value supports (or helps, or assists, or promotes) the higher value. Since the two values in the relationship do not have equal importance, we cannot say that they support each other. (This phrase might be used for a different relationship.) The supporting value has less importance, and the value which is supported has greater importance.

3. Complementary Relationship. What if we consider an action in which the two values seem to be compatible and of about equal importance? In such a case, we can say that the values complement (or complete each other, or fill each other out). If we conclude that two values support each other in an action, we would say that their relationship is complementary. Say a person puts a shoe on each foot in order to go for a walk. Both feet are equally important, right? The value of having a shoe on the right foot doesn't assist or pull together the value of having a shoe on the left foot, does it? Then the two values are complementary. They fit together.

4. Intrinsic Relationship. This may seem like a tough one, because "intrinsic" means "for its own sake," or "in and of itself." So how can two values have an intrinsic relationship if each value is an end in itself? Neither value helps the other. Nor does either hurt the other. The answer is that although the two values connected by an intrinsic relationship are independent of one another, a person acts on the basis of both in a given situation. The relationship is a matter of coincidence, and the coincidence is that both values lead to actions in the same circumstance. Often, we may describe habits by this relationship. Take chewing gum. Have you ever known a person who seemed to be chewing gum all the time? The person could chew gum and drive a car. The key phrase is "at the same time." Whatever values people act out in a particular situation have some relationship. If the only connection is that the person is doing two things at the same time, the relationship is intrinsic.

5. Conflicting Relationship. Sometime we have to act on the basis of a choice between two values that oppose each other. Such choices often play a critical role in the development of our personal value-systems, because they tend to involve the notions of "right" and "wrong." Either-or choices, where questions of right and wrong are involved, reveal a conflicting relationship between values. Conflicting relationships tend to involve ethical values, which many people wrongly consider the only values. Situations that demonstrate conflicting relationships usually center around some decision made by the person acting on the basis of the conflicting values. Say a student notices another student cheating on an examination. The value of loyalty could suggest that one should not inform on a fellow student. A value such as self-interest (so the cheating student won't raise the "curve") suggests that one should inform. What to do? In this situation the values of loyalty and self-interest both play a role because they determine courses of action. But one can act on the basis of one value or the other, not both.

6. Competing Relationship. If conflicting relationships involve a "right" value placed against a "wrong" value, competing relationships involve two "right" values about which a person has to make a decision for action. The decision involves two values of approximately equal worth to the individual who acts, yet the person must decide to act on only one of them in a particular situation. Why? The two values "interfere" with each other. There must be a factor in addition to the two values that prevents a person from acting on the basis of both values. The most common "outside factors" are time, energy, and money. A person may not have enough time, or enough energy, or enough money to act on both values in a particular situation.

Perspectives

1. Ethnocentric Perspective. Ethnocentrism is the perspective that one's own values are true for everybody. It is grounded in the notion that one's own way of doing or looking at things is the only logical, rational way. A phrase that captures the essence of ethnocentrism is: "what is true for me must be true for you." Of course this is so -- the ethnocentric person has discovered the "logical" basis for action! Terms associated with ethnocentrism are: close-mindedness, prejudice, bigotry, and authoritarianism.

Ethnocentrism makes judgments about the "other." The other is wrong if it's different. Ethnocentric judgments make no critical appraisal of evidence or "facts." If "my" way of doing or looking at things is the only logical or correct way, there is no need or desire to examine alternatives. We act in an ethnocentric fashion whenever we try to get others to conform to our standards without seriously considering alternatives, or whenever we close our mind to other points-of-view, or whenever we think ill of (and then act ill toward) others without evidence sufficient to justify the thought or action.

2. Relativistic Perspective. Relativism is the perspective that values are only true in certain cultural or social settings. For a relativist, nothing is true for everybody all the time. A phrase that captures the essence of relativism is: "what is true for me may or may not be true for you." Other phrases are: "live and let live"; "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil"; and "I'm ok, you're ok."

The term most closely associated with relativism is open-mindedness, usually understood in the sense of "non-judgmental." This association is so strong that a refusal to make judgments is often mistaken for freedom from prejudice.

3. Tolerant Perspective. Tolerance is the perspective grounded in the belief that there are universal standards for human behavior. However, there is no way to describe the standards with precision or confidence. You really should pause and think about this for a moment! These are the twin pillars of the perspective of tolerance -- a) universal standards b) that are unknown.

Critical judgment plays a crucial role in considerations of tolerance. The starting-point of tolerance is to consider more than one point-of-view. To consider another point of view is to encounter the "other." Like ethnocentrism, tolerance makes judgments about the "other." The difference is that ethnocentrism makes judgments based solely on the point-of-view of the ethnocentric person. Tolerance, on the other hand, bases its judgments on a rational consideration of all available evidence. Tolerance knows that its judgments are provisional, because all the evidence is not in. Ethnocentrism knows that its judgments are right, because they represent the only "logical" way of thinking. Tolerance uses logic to question all judgments, especially its own.

From its starting-point assumption about standards that are unknown, the perspective of tolerance goes on to ask a question: what is the acceptable amount of variation from these standards? This question provides the key to linking the idea of tolerance (as a perspective) to the many definitions of "tolerance" in the dictionary. "Variation from a standard" is an important meaning for the word "tolerance." Now you might be thinking it's really crazy to ask about the amount of legitimate variation from standards that one can't even define. If you do entertain this thought, you have hit on both the appeal and the difficulty of the idea of tolerance.

Here are three (somewhat overlapping) "rules" for the practice of tolerance:

1. Although tolerance may involve the analysis of other groups by comparing their values with the values of one's own group, practicing tolerance seems to function most fully when it involves meaningful communication between individuals. The failure to achieve meaningful communication generally rests on the inability of the persons involved to respect and trust each other. True dialog and honest encounter mean willingness to respect each other and to share deep and controversial ideas without an attempt to minimize disagreements.

2. Accepting other beliefs and values as valid for the "other" simply because they belong to the "other" is relativism. Tolerance may accept, reject, or suspend judgment about the "other," but only after a rational analysis of the "other" and by a rational comparison with one's own viewpoint. Tolerance is trying to enlarge one's own view by examining alternative views and making critical judgments. To be tolerant, people have to be willing to change if they encounter data that shows them they need to change.

3. We should refuse to make naive claims about "universal" values -- this would be ethnocentrism -- but we can practice tolerance by trying to enlarge our own views through honest, empathetic, and compassionate dialog with different views. This doesn't necessarily have to occur through personal conversations, though personal conversations are one way of achieving such dialog. We could engage in dialog with "primary" sources -- such as art, music, and writings -- from the past. Both tolerance and relativism imply respect for alternate viewpoints. The difference is that tolerance requires us to ask if the beliefs and values of others might be useful in our own lives.

The phrase that captures the essence of tolerance is: "what is true for everyone must be true for me." It's easy to misunderstand this phrase. It DOES NOT MEAN "going along with the crowd." In the phrase "everyone" means "everyone," not some particular group.

The term most closely associated with tolerance is inclusiveness, but again one must beware of misunderstanding the concept. Tolerance never means accepting other beliefs and values simply because they belong to someone else. And it is not a matter of "political correctness" (as the idea of inclusiveness has often come to imply). Tolerance is trying to enlarge one's own view by examining other beliefs and values, and making critical judgments about them.

We hear the word "tolerance" used all the time. Usually we hear it as a synonym for "relativism." In this we encounter a final, widespread misunderstanding. "I can tolerate that," or "I have a lot of tolerance," or "I am a very tolerant person." In all these phrases the term "tolerance" is used as a quasi-substitute for relativism, that is for a perspective that tries to avoid ethnocentrism by assuming a non-judgmental position.