My father, who thrived on thinking like this, would have loved this post. So much good stuff in here. I appreciated the distinction between moral and personal values, and I am hesitant to wade into this, because I worry I'm stating the obvious--probably much like a first-year feels : ). But I can't help wondering if there can also be tension/conflict not in the moral value itself, but in the *how* of the moral value--how it gets lived out. And so that is contextually and situationally-based. For instance, every child should be kept safe. That one seems like a moral value that many would agree with--but what does safe mean? And more to the point, what does it look like? For a person with a tendency to be a helicopter parent, it means hovering and trying to prevent any suffering/damage. But a parent with a tendency toward being a lighthouse--a beacon to return to--it might be letting the child go out into the world (even a world that brings storms) and to be a presence they can return to. Safe is the value, but it looks completely different in both cases. Maybe this is all obvious, and I'm missing the point : ). But, you got me thinking! As ever, and for that I am grateful--for this and all you do.
Thanks, Betsy. :) You're absolutely hitting on an important part of this. Even if we agree that justice/courage/safety/etc. is a value, we still have to work out what that means in a particular context. This is a conversation most at home in the context of virtue ethics, but it comes up in ethics all the time. And it's why we have to develop good judgment, because it won't mean the same thing every time--or in the case of safety, for each kid each time. (But that doesn't mean that the values are relative: just contextual!)
My father, who thrived on thinking like this, would have loved this post. So much good stuff in here. I appreciated the distinction between moral and personal values, and I am hesitant to wade into this, because I worry I'm stating the obvious--probably much like a first-year feels : ). But I can't help wondering if there can also be tension/conflict not in the moral value itself, but in the *how* of the moral value--how it gets lived out. And so that is contextually and situationally-based. For instance, every child should be kept safe. That one seems like a moral value that many would agree with--but what does safe mean? And more to the point, what does it look like? For a person with a tendency to be a helicopter parent, it means hovering and trying to prevent any suffering/damage. But a parent with a tendency toward being a lighthouse--a beacon to return to--it might be letting the child go out into the world (even a world that brings storms) and to be a presence they can return to. Safe is the value, but it looks completely different in both cases. Maybe this is all obvious, and I'm missing the point : ). But, you got me thinking! As ever, and for that I am grateful--for this and all you do.
Thanks, Betsy. :) You're absolutely hitting on an important part of this. Even if we agree that justice/courage/safety/etc. is a value, we still have to work out what that means in a particular context. This is a conversation most at home in the context of virtue ethics, but it comes up in ethics all the time. And it's why we have to develop good judgment, because it won't mean the same thing every time--or in the case of safety, for each kid each time. (But that doesn't mean that the values are relative: just contextual!)
Ah, I see. Or at least I understand that relative and contextual mean two different things : ). Thank you!!
I'm happy to talk more if you ever want to! ;)