Do We Need to “Know” Values?
January 14, 2014
“Confronted with the unpredictability, complexity, and quarrelsomeness of human values, with the apparent lack of any real agreement or uniformity in our personal evaluations and beliefs, the evaluations and beliefs that guide our everyday speech and conduct, how should we respond?” (Lewis, 1999).
This statement is a complex summation of the intricacies of values. While I agree that there is a vast array of different value systems that govern behavior, I disagree with the way Lewis approaches the discussion. It is presented in a way that frames variations in definitions of the term “values” and even diversity among beliefs as a problem that needs to be solved. I agree with the author in quarrelsomeness without agreement or uniformity makes social systems complex and difficult to code or break down. However, these complexities are what separates individuals from one another and what defines a human mind.
I appreciated the epistemological standpoint taken by Lewis. However, I disagree on some of the premises of the argument. By delving into the specifics about what it means to know something, Lewis is operating under the presumption that a value must be known. Values are spoken of as firm and stringent long-lasting truths. They are approached as the core of human behavior and decisions. However, many people hold contradicting values or their values may change from one day to the next depending on what issues they are dealing with or even what is convenient for the time and place. However, society has a pattern of rejecting people and losing trust in people who change their values. Politics exemplifies this idea. There are few terms worse for a politician than a “flip-flopper”. The public is very stringent on policing the values of others in a way that too narrowly confines a “value”. While it can be a bad thing to neglect governing morals for more convenient or safe actions, a lot of good can come from allowing oneself some plasticity in values. Without allowing new information and experiences to shape and mold perspective, there is no progress. Values, while unarguably central to the human experience, are in their practice “unpredictable”, “complex”, and often even “quarrelsome”.
One Response to “Do We Need to “Know” Values?”
January 19th, 2014 at 7:32 pm
You point out interesting flaw in Lewis’ article; how human values are adaptive to their situations and are truly unpredictable. I appreciate how you are looking to the future, and examine the past to come to identify that our values are ever changing with new information and experiences each day. Lewis’ six modes, however, are still a beneficial tool for understanding values, even in a changing viewpoint. A value that changes day-by-day due to biases or new information can be drawn back to a sense experience, deductive logic, etc. I think Lewis’ study can be informative when considering a large group of people and their core values. Often a community will hold alike predominant values; similarly citizens of a country will have a relatively parallel moral code. And although the stringent public molds how the ‘popular’ values are acted upon, there are some values that are worldwide – for example, family love and safety. Nevertheless Lewis’ excludes many other, miscellaneous ways that values are formed – for example, I hate celery at this point in my life just to be difficult – this doesn’t really fall into any of Lewis’ modes. You and Lewis both provide interesting incite into how values are formed, adding to the complex approach of understanding human values.
-Liz