ARE
WE TALKING MORALS OR VALUES?
Don A. Bright
I have been giving a lot of thought since the election about the so-called “values” issue. It is my opinion that the two sides are reading from two separate pages; one from the spiritual page and the other from the cultural page.
In the first place I don’t really think “values” have any essential relation with religious beliefs; or for that matter, morals. Tying the two together results in an argument about spiritual biases. That is one argument that goes nowhere, period. It is rather like throwing handfuls of air at one another.
Values, to me, come closer to plain old common sense. Values are not morals. Morals are individual criteria mined by each of us from some physical or ethereal quarry. Be it childhood environment, genetics or spiritual, it all comes from what I think of as the “unique experience”. No two people can have the same moral code. The differences may vary from elfin to Herculean, but they always exist.
Likewise no assemblage or class of persons can have a shared morality. It doesn’t matter how closely together members of any religious sect are, they are not, nor can they be, of a universal purity of morals.
All of this is to say that all the charges and counter charges about the election of 2004 were about morals is completely missing the point. Values, however, are another thing.
Can values be common to any one segment of the populace? Again, no, but much more so than morals. So what’s the difference? Values can be collectively striven for. Values which are universal – or as close to universal as is possible – unlike morals, can be defined by a diverse but similarly bent culture. And they have nothing to do with religion.
Let’s look at the role of values in the election from a nonecclesiastical standpoint. Like morals, values are not either universal or eternal. However, they (values) can be collectively congruous. That is to say that, unlike morals, values can evolve through intellectual thought and not spiritual compulsion.
In our society we have a more or less universal acceptance of the fact that unnecessary and premeditated killing is a bad thing. It’s not valuable to society. Likewise we are similarly in agreement on the premise that caring for less fortunate persons is a good thing. It is of value to the country. But neither of these emanate from any higher power, be it a supreme being or the government. Bottom up consensus is necessary for a value standard.
Therefore, should we value those of us that impose their morals on others? No. Neither can we build a consensus for morality.
Are so called “Christian conservatives” really meaning morals when they are asked to name the most important and motivating issue upon which their vote was determined? No. At least not universally. Those who voted in such a way as to encourage or codify their morality acted against the values of our society.
An example of the manifestation of values and its non-moral attributes can be shown by the recent death of Yasser Arafat. Some in the media referred to the man Arafat as a valued hero. I think the consensus of our countrymen would not consider his works as a value to any society or the world at large. Would I vote for a person who considers Arafat an asset to the world? No, I would not share that value nor would I want it evolve into one. Of importance here is the question of whether I think the persons who admire Arafat or Arafat himself as immoral? I don’t.
A perfect example of a person confusing “morals” and “values” happened on one of the network morning television shows. Diane Sawyer also raised the point of how Kerry backers claimed that "moral values" is " [a] code for something else. It's [a] code for taking a different position about gays in America, an exclusionary position, a code about abortion, code about imposing Christianity over other faiths."
I personally think that Sawyer and the Kerry backers she refers to really thought in terms of morality instead of values. I think, however, the electorate was motivated to vote for what I call “traditional” values and not “morality” or any religious bias. At least I hope that is true.
Do I think President Bush is going against the values of our country by waging war without following the Constitution? Yes. Do I think that John Kerry is lowering our values standards when he advocates no restrictions on abortion? Yes.
Do I think either George Bush or John Kerry is immoral? That’s not my job.