St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 1"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, September 19, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                               Questions of Value*

The really fundamental questions of our lives are not questions of fact or finance but questions of value.’ Patrick Grim, Ph.D.

Introduction

What is it that gives something genuine value? What is worth striving for; what makes life worth living? Are there values that transcend cultural differences? Is there objective value or is all value subjective? Is ethics possible without religion? If the universe is deterministic, can there be real choice or moral responsibility? What happens when values conflict; what do we owe others? Is anyone ever better off dead?

Question: These are just some of the fundamental questions dealt with in ethics and value theory. Can you think of any other questions of value that intrigue you?

We will examine fundamental questions of value, and how they impact our lives. Our goal here is not to close debate but to open it, not to resolve questions of value but to delve into them. No stance or position need be assumed dogmatically and all positions are open to further scrutiny and thought. Rest assured all of us are capable of taking on this project. Since this is a forum, all are encouraged to speak what’s on their mind.

Perhaps it’s best to define value and get that out of the way. From Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary:

Value:
1. a fair or proper equivalent in money, commodities, etc., esp. for something sold or exchanged; fair price or return 
2. the worth of a thing in money or goods at a certain time; market price 
3. estimated or appraised worth or price; valuation 
4. purchasing power; the fluctuating value of the dollar
5. that quality of a thing according to which it is thought of as being more or less desirable, useful, estimable, important, etc.; worth or the degree of worth 
6. that which is desirable or worthy of esteem for its own sake; thing or quality having intrinsic worth 
7. the social principles, goals, or standards held or accepted by an individual, class, society, etc.

Though ethical values will be of essential importance in our discussions, we will also certainly touch on aesthetic, pragmatic, cultural and religious values (see atchs). This leads to another definition which perhaps more closely applies to our efforts here.
Axiology: Axiology is the study of values in general – any and all kinds of values – and their interrelationships. Axiology delves into the nature of value itself.

Why question value? Why bother? Socrates held that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living.’ A bit harsh perhaps, but this much we know: The unexamined life – by default a more limited life – will never know whether it is worth living. This is reason enough to examine questions of value. But wait, there’s another challenging reason. By testing our values, we hope to discover how we might better get along with each other. 

Facts vs. Values:

Questions of fact play a major role in our lives. As individuals we need to know the ‘facts’ – reality. Collectively, we also want to know general facts. For example, are we alone in the universe? Scientific exploration is a way of getting at the facts. The realm of value is explored or developed differently.

To get a sense of this difference, consider the following. One could have a complete factual picture of the universe yet not know the first thing about value. Moreover, one could know all the facts and still not know which facts are important, or whether any of the facts are important. Which facts are important and why they are important and what use we should make of those facts, those are questions of value. 

The point is this. All facts share the same status; no one fact is any more important than another. If we think one fact is more important than another, than we are making a value judgment. But that’s what humans do; we evaluate and sort facts in terms of value. Thus the existence of other intelligent life in the universe is of value to us because we value both life and intelligence. 

Question: Can you imagine viewing the world entirely on factual terms devoid of value?
There is food before you. You are hungry. But you see no value in eating. What do you see? What of those suffering depression or with autism? What about the narcissist?

The contrast between fact and value can be made more personal. Consider that your life, as you have lived it, has taken one path up to now. The future is still unknown. But countless other paths were open to you had fate allowed or you simply chose otherwise. What if you took a different spouse, a different job, etc? So it’s not too difficult to look back on your life and imagine it as a series of branching paths with choices -- a tree diagram. Your actual life is one course through the tree. But imagine you can see the entire tree with all its possibilities for your life – choices made, choices not made, choices yet to be made, and their factual consequences. Now what? 

In this thought experiment it’s possible to know all the contingencies of your life past, present and future, and know the consequences of all possible choices. But here’s the rub. You can possess all these facts and still not know either what you should have done in the past or what you should do now. Questions of what you should do are questions above and beyond questions of what did happen, what will happen, and even what will happen or would have happened if. Questions concerning what you should do are questions of value.

Question: Do you buy this argument? If not, why not? Wouldn’t knowing the consequences of our choices dictate those choices? If I knew buying a lottery ticket would result in me winning a zillion dollars, I should buy that lottery ticket. Or should I?

The young and old perceive the forking tree of life choices differently. The young see all the possibilities in front of them. The old are haunted by what might have been. Agree?

Question: Your life – viewed as a branching tree – begins and ends with singularities: birth and death. All roads lead to Rome, so to speak. So, does it really matter what path is taken?

Facts and Values:

The distinction between facts and values has a long philosophical history. Plato examined the kinds of disagreements that lead to ‘hatred and wrath’ and those that do not.

Question: Can you figure out what conclusions Plato came to?

Plato’s student, Aristotle, pursued wisdom. Wisdom seeks comprehensive answers to the questions of ‘what is’ (questions of fact) and ‘why’ (questions of value). According to Aristotle, to fully understand anything – to have wisdom about it – you must answer four questions. These four questions pertain to four ‘causes’ or ‘modes of explanation’.

1. Material cause: what’s it made of?
2. Formal cause: what’s its inner form or essence? (its in-form-ation) 
3. Efficient cause: how is it brought about?
4. Final cause: what’s its purpose or the good that it seeks?

Consider a sailing ship. It consists of wood, metal, rope, and cloth. These are its material cause. A sailing ship is a wind-driven conveyance that exhibits water resistance, buoyancy and stability upon the water. These are the formal cause. Sailing ships do not self-assemble. What are needed are skilled workers to put all the pieces together properly. This is the efficient cause. The ‘good’ that a sailing ship seeks is in the mind of its designer; its purpose or final cause is to travel upon water, accomplishing the tasks for which it was designed.

The rise of modern science beginning in the 15th century undermined Aristotle’s ‘teleological’ or purposeful view of the world. This rise of modern science (refer to Galileo, Bacon, Newton, etc.) sought the material and efficient causes of all things but rejected (or avoided) Aristotle’s formal and final causes which address value or purpose. Thus fact was sundered from value.

Question: What do you think Aristotle might say about ‘intelligent design’?
Values and Modernity

The history of values goes back as far as you wish to go. Ancient societies, at least initially, were sufficiently isolated (by way of language and/or geography) which allowed them to develop their own unique worldview. Values were established in a number of ways: tradition (experience), decree (reason), and sacred writ (revelation or myth), etc. Over time these societies matured; unified and confident in their common ‘point of view’.

However, the advent of the modern era or ‘modernity’ in Western Civilization (since the 15th century) has challenged many of the assumptions held by the ancients. Wherever the culture of modernity has spread, it threatens traditional values, religious beliefs, and ways of life. This has created confusions and disagreements about values that continue up to the present; and can lead to skepticism about values, or worse, nihilism. The problem?

Pluralism: the prevalence of competing points of view on matters of fundamental belief and value. We live in a world of conflicting voices, philosophies, religions, traditions, practices, beliefs and values.
o The ‘global economy’ transports cultures and values as well as goods.
o Open, democratic societies are intrinsically pluralistic.
· Uncertainty: the difficulty of determining which of the competing views is ‘right’ from within any given view.

Pluralism and uncertainty lie behind much of our disagreements and confusions about values. They can lead to the following:

Subjectivism (of values): the view that judgments about good and evil, right and wrong, do not describe objective facts of the world, but represent only individual or subjective expressions of feelings or emotion, desire or preference, recommendations or condemnations.

Relativism (of values): the view that all judgments about good and evil, right and wrong, are valid for only some persons or times or societies or particular points of view, but not for all. In short, there is no one truth applicable to all. 

Many people respond to pluralism and uncertainty by simply asserting they are certain of the truth of their own view; they know in their heart, or they may cite the authority of the Bible, or give some other justification. What one thinks is the true or right way to live for oneself or anyone is one’s private morality. It often conflicts with public morality; i.e., what we owe others even if they disagree with our private morality. Indeed, such conflict appears to be the price for living in a free society. Where the distinction between private and public morality ceases to be, we find totalitarian societies. 

Question: OK, what do we owe others? Where and how do we draw the line?

Ethical/Moral values
o Core values: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, citizenship. 
o Truth
o Justice
o Wisdom
o Can you list others????

Social/Cultural values
o Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (also property)
o Family
o Freedom
o Equality (Is freedom and equality possible?)
o Privacy
o Education
o The American Dream (What is it? Prosperity?)
o Others????

Pragmatic values
o Nature (environment)
o Experience
o Knowledge, reason, logic, creativity
o Skill, excellence
o Utility (an abstract measure of worth or satisfaction in terms of what one values)
o Security
o Others????

Aesthetic values
o Beauty
o Quality
o Pleasure
o Antiques Road Show
§ Rarity – how does scarcity affect value?
§ Value added – the hat made of ribbon.
§ Provenance – Elvis 

Religious values
o Faith, Hope and Love
o Compassion, empathy, forgiveness 
o Obedience, devotion, humility
o Charity, ‘Golden Rule’
o Others????

Trustworthiness
Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends and country 
Respect
Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements 
Responsibility
Do what you are supposed to do • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your choices 
Fairness
Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly 
Caring
Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need 
Citizenship
Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 2"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, September 26, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

Are Values Subjective?

One question posed by the separation or sundering of fact from value for the modern era is whether there are any objective values or whether all judgments about good and evil, right and wrong are merely subjective expressions of personal feelings or attitudes. It’s been argued that facts are objective – out there in the world to be studied by science – while values are merely subjective expressions of personal taste or feeling. 

Two strands of modern thought have led many persons to subjectivism (i.e., the view that value judgments do not describe objective facts of the world, but represent only individual or subjective expressions of feelings or emotion, desire or preference, recommendations or condemnations). 

Positivism: the view that all the objective knowledge we can have comes through science, that is through experimentation and observation.
Existentialism: a view that emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility; we are not entirely made by nature, but make ourselves by our own free choices. 

These philosophical schools of thought, particularly existentialism, are deep and complex – way beyond the scope of our project here. But a couple examples may help.

Bertrand Russell, the British logician and philosopher, was a ‘positivist’. He held all knowledge is limited to science and “science had nothing to say about values.” To say something is good is “the affirmation of a personal wish or desire” for it.

John-Paul Sartre, French playwright and philosopher, saw things differently: “existence precedes essence.” What does he mean? Man first of all exists, finds himself and defines his essence only after discovery of self. Sartre held that man is not created with a preassigned essence (Aristotle’s formal cause) by God or nature, but “man makes himself” by his own free choices. In such self-making, Sartre insists, there are no objective grounds to appeal to for certain ethical judgments of right or wrong. Confused?
Well, join the club. A specific example may help some. 

Sartre posed this hypothetical moral dilemma: Should a young man leave home to join the French resistance to the Nazis, or remain at home with his ailing mother? He is faced with competing values. Does he honor his mother, or does he combat evil? Now, what does human nature tell the boy to do? What do the commands of God tell the boy to do? What does ‘reason’ tell the boy to do? In the end the boy was forced to simply choose. And his choice was the ‘right’ choice. Why? Sartre claims we make our own values by our subjective choices and by taking responsibility for those choices.

Russell was a dedicated activist for world peace winning a Noble Prize. He protested the Viet Nam War and accused the US of crimes against humanity. Ironically, this raises the question of what causes one might be committed to if subjectivism is true. Russell admitted that if confronted by someone with an opposing view, he had no principled argument to show he was right and they were wrong because there was no objective right or wrong about the matter at all. Helpful? Probably not.

Question: Russell asserts that “science has nothing to say about values”. If so, then science has nothing to say about right or wrong. Are there scientific questions that we have an ethical obligation to pursue? Are there forms of scientific knowledge that would be ethically wrong to pursue?

Question: Fairness appears to be a universal value. How can fairness be subjective? I mean fair is fair, right?

Question: Has the recent recession changed your values? More broadly, are values subject to changing economic conditions?

Wow, that was pretty heavy stuff. If your head is hurting, don’t be alarmed. Questions of value are often subtle, deep and complex. But through thoughtful examination we hope to achieve clarity. OK, let’s get less serious.

Best & Worst

I love classical music, you can’t stand it. You love Hip-Hop, and I cringe. Well, so what. To each his own. Who am I to say Hip-Hop is bad and the classics are good? Who’s to say? 

Question: If subjectivism is true, can the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ of anything ever be determined? Who is the best athlete? What is the worst movie? The best pizza?

But imagine you’re invited to a wine tasting party. A party so elaborate that every wine that’s ever been produced is there to be tasted and ranked. They’re all there, and one of them has to be the best, one the worst. Can it be otherwise?

Everything Has a Price

Putting a price on something says a lot about what we genuinely value. It’s not always about supply and demand. It’s often about intangibles.

Question: The price of a commercial apple pie is clearly marked on the box. What price for you Grandma’s apple pie? What price for Grandma’s apple pie recipe? 

Question: The price is right! How much should … cost?

Question: Money. What does it mean to you?

Relativism

OK, we asked if values are subjective – i.e., determined by personal preference. Indeed, many values are subjective. But the deeper question is whether all values are subjective, not just some. Now we’re asked a similar question: Are values relative? That is, are values valid for only some persons or times or societies, or particular points of view, but not for all? Well, the short answer is yes. Values change over time, and differ across cultures. But, as you might expect, the question is more complex then it first appears.

Are values relative? This question needs to be examined carefully. There is a great deal of insight and truth in relativism. However, there are some dangerous ethical mistakes as well. One form of relativism argues that an action wrong in one cultural context may be right in another. This claim is not merely about what is believed to be right and wrong, but about what really is right and wrong in different contexts. A couple of examples:

Usury: It can be argued that usury – borrowing money at interest – was a genuine vice during the middle ages (a sin in biblical times). But capitalism, by definition, is built on credit – borrowing money at interest. What is a vice in one case is not in another because of differing economic contexts.

Parental Obligations: In the Trobriand Islands of Papua, New Guinea, the male role model, ‘parent’, and legal guardian for Trobriand children is the mother’s brother – not the children’s biological father. Not sure what happens if the mother has no brothers. In America, a male’s obligations to his nieces and nephews are relatively weak. The point is, different social systems result in different care for children. 

But can a universal claim be made that all values are culturally relative? There are three ‘types’ of relativism that are often confused:

· Descriptive Relativism -- cultures differ in fundamental beliefs about value.
· Ethical Relativism – actions right in one culture may be wrong in another.
· Prescriptive Relativism – it is wrong to pass judgment on other cultures.

There is a standard relativistic argument that links the three and is offered as ‘proof’.

· Step1: Different cultures differ in their fundamental ethical beliefs.
· Step2: An action right in one culture may, therefore, be wrong in another culture. There are no universal moral truths; what is right or wrong varies across cultures.
· Step3: Thus, it is wrong to pass judgment on those with different ethical values.

Question: Do you accept this argument? 

In order to support ethical relativism in step 2, we need a universal descriptive relativism in step 1; that is, there are no values that hold across cultures. Many values do hold across cultures. For example, no culture holds it is ethical to kill children for sport. On the contrary, all cultures hold it is not ethical to kill children for sport. Step 1 fails to get off the ground. What of the move from ethical relativism in step 2 to prescriptive relativism in step 3? Ethical relativism actually contradicts prescriptive relativism. If nothing is universally right or wrong (ethical relativism), then contrary to prescriptive relativism, it cannot universally be wrong to pass judgment on another culture.

The lessons to be learned are these: Descriptive relativism seems to be a simple factual claim, but it turns out to be far from simple. The appearance of ethical differences may be merely superficial. Nevertheless, some things may be right in one ethical context and not in another. Hence, it is wrong to pass hasty judgment on those in different cultural contexts who hold different values. 

Question: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Good advice?

From Experience to Worth

What follows is a case for non-relative or objective of value. Objective value can be thought of as value that transcends space and time; value that is respected from all points of view – i.e., non-relative. The case proceeds through four dimensions of human value.

· 1st Dimension: Experience. Our first encounters with good and evil are through certain basic value and disvalue experiences. Basic value experiences include joy, contentment, accomplishment, etc. Basic disvalue experiences include sadness, frustration, humiliation and the like. These are good or bad in the first instance, other things being equal, unless overridden in some higher dimension of value. Value thus conceived in the first dimension is both objective and relative. 

Objective: It is an objective fact in the world whether someone is experiencing joy or pain.

Relative: The joy and pain is accessible only to the person that experiences them.

Every time you or anyone feels joy or pain, the gap between fact and value has been bridged – even if only for you.

· 2nd Dimension: Purposive Activity. When experience is stretched out over time, and involves purposive activity with practical goals, we reach a second dimension of value. This second dimension includes first-dimensional experiences. We train for a new job, diet and exercise to promote good health, compete to win. The value here lies in the fulfillment of the purposes and goals put forth. Values are objective in this second dimension as well.

Objective: There is an objective fact of the matter whether or not some purpose is fulfilled or goal achieved.

Relative: Second dimension value is both relative and subjective in a sense since the fulfillment and satisfaction are of the purposes and desires of a particular agent.

· 3rd Dimension: Forms of Life. Experience and purposive activities are viewed in the third dimension in terms of how they define who and what we are. A primitive hunter does not merely hunt for food, but takes pride in his skill with a bow because it signifies that he is and excellent archer, a good provider for his family and a loyal member of his tribe. Third dimension value has to do with meaning or significance of experiences and purposive activities within certain forms of life – traditions, cultures, and so on. It has to do with our ideals, virtues and excellences in those forms of life.

Objective: There can be an objective fact of the matter about whether or not a standard of excellence has been attained or a virtue realized in a given way of life or practice. Caution: some people may be deluded.

Relative: Value in the third dimension, if objective, is still relative to groups of persons who participate in practices and forms of life that give meaning and significance to their lives.

· 4th Dimension: Worth. The fourth dimension of value is meant to be non-relative. It is objective or universal worth. The fourth dimension of value is as elusive as the fourth dimension of space, since it requires rising above all particular perspectives to say what is true, right or excellent for all of them. This fourth dimension perspective can be thought of as coming from a ‘God’s eye view’. Relativists claim that one cannot get up to this fourth dimension.

Question: Many people think of relativism as the doctrine that ‘no point of view about values is objectively better than any other’. This form of ‘vulgar relativism’ was refuted long ago by the ancient Greeks. It is self-contradictory. Do you see how?

The task of finding universal truths and values is difficult. It seems to be a natural human tendency to project third-dimensional forms of life into the fourth dimension, assuming they were of universal worth. But this is not good enough; it must be shown how to rise above limited points of view, either to say one view is best or to say no point of view is any better then any other. Many renowned philosophers have stepped up to this most difficult challenge.

Question: Do you think it’s possible to get to the 4th dimension? If so, how?

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 3"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, October 3, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

Right and Wrong

What kind of knowledge is ethical knowledge? How do we know right from wrong? The working assumption is that we do know things about ethics: that people have rights, for example, and that it is wrong to violate those rights. We know that we have obligations to family, friends and humanity at large.

Skeptics, on the other hand, deny the possibility of ethical knowledge. Skepticism generally relies on raising the possibility that one might be wrong, followed by ‘So you don’t really know, do you?’ The skeptic maintains that if there is any possibility of being wrong about something, we cannot claim to know it. None of our knowledge is infallible in that sense. But what the skeptic fails to concede is this; what knowledge demands is simply that we have hit on the truth – perhaps not the whole truth – and have reasons to think so.

If we do have ethical knowledge, what’s its nature and origins? 

· Some argue rights and wrongs are self-evident as in ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident…’ from our Declaration of Independence. Intuitive, for example.
· Perhaps ethical knowledge is somehow analogous to empirical knowledge; i.e., gleaned from observation and experience over a long span of time. Consider the book of Proverbs.
· We know right from wrong by consulting our conscience. The problem with conscience is in believing it offers and infallible guide. One’s conscience may simply reflect one’s acculturation.
· Perhaps ethical knowledge is like mathematical knowledge in that it involves a special kind of perception into a special kind of realm. Does this imply math professors are pillars of virtue? Seriously, I’m unsure just what this means. The notion of an ethical, axiomatic algorithm comes to mind. Derived, for example.

Question: Trace the origins of your personal understanding of right and wrong. Were you taught right from wrong, or did you learn ‘the hard way’?

Ethical knowledge is a matter of evaluation. We work toward ethical knowledge by evaluating our forms of evaluation themselves. We test our modes of evaluation in terms of consistency. We also test our modes of evaluation on the basis of moral experience. We employ empathy; putting ourselves in another’s position. We judge specific cases on general principles but also judge general principles in terms of specific cases.

Question: What method(s) do you use to distinguish right from wrong?

Good vs. Right

Ethical evaluation is more complicated than simple judgments of right and wrong. We evaluate certain consequences as good and, thus, evaluate actions as good in their outcome. But we also evaluate actions as being right in terms of their motivations, and evaluate agents as acting rightly. Thus there are, among others, two pure theories of the foundations of ethics: theories of the Good and theories of the Right.

The structure of good-based theories is simple. There are things of positive value in the world. Actions that produce them are good actions. Actions motivated to produce them are ethically right. One must account for complexity. For example, there are cases in which people do the right things for the wrong reasons. There are cases in which people do the wrong thing despite pure motives. Good-based theories have a long history but appear in modern guise as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be summed up as followed: That action is right which produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

The structure of right-based theories is more complicated. Here the foundation is not good results but right actions; the core concept is motive. The purest development of a right-based theory can be found in Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is intended as a litmus test for moral action. In considering an action, we are to ask ourselves whether we can ‘will that the maxim of our action become a universal law’, applying everywhere to everyone. If we can, the act is permissible; if not, it is morally wrong. Confused? It’s understandable. However, one example Kant gives may help some. Ask yourself this: May I make a promise with the intention not to keep it? Kant says no. For if you universalize the action of promise breaking, the institution of promising would no longer make sense, and thus the action is wrong. Kant provides other examples such as lying and suicide.

Question: Both theories are flawed. Do you see how? 

Good-based theories are often blind to issues of justice. Might an innocent person be involuntarily sacrificed for the greatest good for the greatest number? Would utilitarianism justify social arrangements where say 90% were happy and prosperous at the expense of a 10% oppressed minority? Would it be OK to break a promise simply because some slightly greater good could be produced for someone else (me, perhaps) by breaking it? In addition, self-sacrifice runs counter to pleasure-seeking utility. 

Some cases seem to pass Kant’s test but are morally wrong. For Kant, lying is always wrong. But what about lying in order to save an innocent life? Would you lie to the Nazis in an attempt to spare Anne Frank’s life? What if you simply remained silent?

Question: Both theories of the Good and Right are flawed an inadequate. But are they compatible? Complementary?

For Kant, the core of ethics is the good will. The value of the good will is independent of its consequences. The core of morality, then, is immune to luck. Or is it?
Moral Luck

The concepts of chance or luck and morality do not seem to go together; it seems that morality cannot be a mere matter of luck. But consider an example where we assign greater blame in one case than another, but the difference between them is a mere matter of luck.

Our legal system treats the crime of murder much more stringently then the crime of attempted murder. Two people may have precisely the same motives and intentions: to kill an innocent human being. One succeeds, is found guilty of murder, and receive the death penalty. The other fails because the gun jams or he slips on a banana peel and fires into the air, is found guilty of only attempted murder, and receives a five-year prison sentence.

Question: Can that be just? 

The law is a cumbersome and costly institution. It may, therefore, make sense to handle murder and attempted murder in different ways. Error is all too easy in our effort to distinguish murder attempts that fail because of wavering intent from those that fail due to mere happenstance.

The concept of moral luck crops up in our daily lives; in the ethical evaluations of our own actions. Maybe this has happened to you. Consider the case of a parent who leaves their infant child in the bath in order to answer the phone. Perhaps the parent is expecting an urgent call. Now the parent is clearly negligent in leaving the baby alone in the tub with the water running. The parent realizes this as he or she bounds up the stairs toward the bathroom. If the baby has drowned, the parent has done something horrible, whereas if the baby is content and well, the parent has merely been careless.

Here’s another example. Suppose you’ve put off installing new brakes on your car. You know you need new brakes; your brake pedal is soft, and it’s been years since your last brake job. It’s on your list of things to do – although not yet at the top. You’re driving along minding your own business when suddenly, 20 feet ahead, a small child darts out from behind a parked car right into the path of your car. You slam on your brakes! 

Question: Now, you have no control over whether or not a child will run into your path. So, if you run over this child, who’s to blame? Same scenario except you just had new brakes installed on your car that very day. Again, who’s to blame? 

Question: Are there cases for which you blame yourself that have turned on issues of moral luck? Are there cases that you would have blamed yourself if they had turned out badly?

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 4"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, October 10, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

The Good Life

What make a life a good life? Theories of the good life traditionally advanced by the most influential philosophers can be boiled down to four.

· Contemplative Life. Aristotle, in his conception of the contemplative life, takes a page from the Socratic maxim that the unexamined life is not worth living. A contemplative life assigns a high priority to introspection and deep reflection.
· Active Life. The same Aristotle – along with numerous subsequent philosophers, some Stoic, some medieval – will offer the active life, which is lived, not just thought about, as the right sort of life.
> Fundamental to both the contemplative life and active life is Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia. Often translated as ‘happiness’, eudaimonia is best understood as ‘flourishing’.
> According to Aristotle a flourishing life is ‘perfectionist’; referring to a lifelong striving to improve oneself in essentially moral ways.
· Fatalistic Life. To live the good life is to be extremely lucky. Resignation is an essential property in the good life. The good life is just coming to grips with inevitabilities and being realistic about one’s chances. Life owes us nothing. Enjoy the highs, endure the lows. Existentialism anyone?
· Hedonistic Life. The true hedonist is not out for any and all pleasure. Too much pleasure can be painful. The goal of a hedonistic life is tranquility.
o Thomas Hobbes was in this camp. Hobbes held that we move toward what we want and away from what we fear or dislike. It is the fear of a violent death that moves us to enter civil society.

Question: Any other ‘forms of life’ come to mind? 

Question: Suppose you possessed a magic ring. Turn the ring one direction and you disappear, turn it back and you reappear. Describe your invisible life. Different?

Lives to Envy, Lives to Admire

Most of us want to live a good life. Many strive; some claim to succeed. OK, what constitutes such a life? A good life may be enviable; that is to say, good ‘from the inside’ or ‘good for its bearer’. An enviable life is the life we might wish for ourselves or our children. Alternatively, a good life may be admirable in the sense of being a life of value beyond the individual. We can see examples of both every day, all around us. 

Admit it; there are lives we envy. One kind of enviable life might be a life of adventure, accomplishment and recognition. Consider the lives of Peyton Manning, Oprah Winfrey, Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, or the late composer Leonard Bernstein. An enviable life would include abundant measures of freedom, love, health, wealth, and wisdom. And let’s not forget ‘happiness’. The enviable life – a life to be prized – just might be a very good life.

There are also lives we admire – lives of self-sacrifice and dedication, lives well spent. The lives of Lincoln, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King come to mind. The life of Jesus would top the list. Though admirable, we seldom envy the living of such lives. Why? Well, typically they endure hardships and often end poorly. The distinction is clear. The admirable life – a life to be praised – is also a very good life, albeit radically different.

Question: ‘It gives me joy’ says the saint. ‘It’s just my job’ says the hero. So, what sort of life do the saints and heroes choose? 

Our pursuit of a good life would appear to come down to making a choice between an enviable or admirable life. But it’s not that simple. The enviable life includes genuinely good things. The admirable life is a ‘life of virtue’ worthy of clear recognition with praise. Furthermore, a life without elements of the admirable – for example, a life devoted solely to sensory pleasure – could not be fully enviable. Such a life would be merely the life of a supreme spectator. So it is not unreasonable to conclude that a good life must be a ‘mixed life’: it must contain both enviable and admirable elements.

Question: Who’s pulled it off? Who in your opinion has lived (or is living) a good life; a life to be both envied and admired? 

Consider the life of Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) - German charitative worker, Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1952), theologian, philosopher, organist, musicologist. A good candidate to be sure, but note that fame or noteriety does not always attend a good life. Many good lives never make the headlines. Many qualify as ‘role models’. Any examples come to mind? 

Question: OK. Where does Tiger Woods fit?

We may want it both ways, but can we have it both ways? The pretty picture of a ‘mixed life’ may be too good to be true. Imagine such a mixed life with the admirable at its core and the enviable at its periphery. At the outset, this arrangement leads to conflict as to where to draw the line between each. Suppose you decide to allocate weekdays pursuing the admirable life, and weekends and holidays in pursuit of the enviable life. Why draw the line there? Suppose your neighbor needs help. Do you check the calendar? 

There’s a tension. The spirit that drives the admirable life will be compelled to draw the line farther and farther out towards the periphery. This is because the admirable life demands and usually deserves priority over the enviable life. The mixed life is therefore unstable. We want the enviable life because it’s good, we like it, and we earned it. At the same time (our own basic needs sufficiently met) we want to give back; help others perhaps less fortunate, or make a difference in the world. We are pulled in different directions. Paradoxically, the ‘best’ life to live – in pursuit of a good life – will be one of continual struggle. Perhaps not what you wanted to hear.

We come to realize an admirable life may flourish, but only at the expense of the enviable life. Moreover, the pressure to heed the ‘call’ of the admirable life never ceases. Like the saint and hero, must we go above and beyond the call of duty? This tension, this pressure often leads a thoughtful person to guilt and despair.

Question: Is there a remedy available to ease such guilt and despair? How might Jesus respond?

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 5"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, October 17, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

The Cash Value of a Life

What is the value of a human life? If you ask the Ford Motor Company this question their answer would be $200,000 – the cash value of a human life. How did Ford arrive at this figure? It was an educated guess used in a cost-benefit analysis that came out in court concerning the Ford Pinto. 

The Ford Pinto’s rear mounted gas tank was an invitation to disaster, resulting in at least 500 burn deaths. In preproduction, a different gas tank placement was considered but rejected because it took up too much trunk space. The risk could have been eliminated by installing a fire-prevention device in each gas tank at $11 per car. This option also was rejected. Ford’s cost-benefit analysis compared the cost of installing the fire extinguisher in its fleet of Pintos to the estimated cost of court-ordered settlements awarded to the families of victims injured or killed. Injuries were estimated at $67,000 and deaths at $200,000 each. The potential benefit to Ford was calculated at $49.5 million. Bottomline: it was cheaper to pay off the victims than fix the problem! Offended? 

Question: So what is the value of a human life? Are human lives always of equal value? 

Question: Is it life itself or the content of a life that is of value? How might a doctor or pastor answer this question? 

Gift of Life

Life is often described as a gift from God. But mortals also have the opportunity to provide the ‘gift of life’. Here we take up the subject of organ transplants, and the values of both donors and recipients.

Many, perhaps most, organs available for transplant are harvested from donors who have died. But in the case of kidneys, many donors are alive and well. Very often they donate a kidney to a family member or a close loved one – they know each other. Consider for a moment the expectations of both kidney donor and kidney recipient. For example, is it reasonable to expect the donor should have some ‘say’ in the recipient’s life? In turn, is it reasonable to expect the recipient should be somehow ‘obligated’ to the donor?

Question: Suppose the transplant fails. Who’s likely to be more devastated, the recipient or the donor?

Question: There’s a shortage of blood in your community. You answer the call. Your blood is sent to the blood bank but never used; it’s discarded. How’s that make you feel? 
Better Off Dead

Could someone literally be better off dead? Death is not like the experience of being in a dark room; what it represents is the absence of experience. One cannot compare the experience of living with the experience of not-living because the latter does not exist. Does this make sense?

Most fear death. Is it the pain of dying? What is so bad about death? Well, if we value experience at all, death must be seen as the loss of that aspect of value. Loss leads to regret. We’re apt to regret missing out on what will happen after our death. Curiously, we seldom regret missing out on what happened before our birth. 

Death affects different values in different ways. There are things that are of value because they are of value to us – our own accomplishments, for example. That value is lost with our death. But there are also things that are of value in themselves, independently of us. That value need not be lost with our death.

Question: What things of value will/will-not continue after your death?

Perhaps it’s the quality of life that lies behind the idea of ‘better off dead’. Can the quality of a person’s life be so negative (painful, frightening, useless, etc.) that death is preferred to living? Consider the life of a severe burn victim, a battered and abused spouse, or the coma patient. 

Question: Does the picture in which quality of life can be genuinely negative entail that suicide is sometimes rational?

Question: Anything worth dying for? Life insurance? What about the suicide bomber?

Immortality

You may be thinking, why discuss immortality? Nobody either lives forever or leaves this world alive, so why bother? Well, for two reasons. First, our different values have a complex relationship to time. Second, philosophical reflection on immortality teaches us much about what we ultimately value in our mortal lives.

Permanent existence is clearly not the only value. Some things, were they to last forever, would not have the value that they do. Examples include a child’s smile or the hypnotic glow of a campfire. There are also things that are valued because of their relative position in time. Examples include your first kiss and a parent’s final farewell. 

Question: If it were revealed that you would live on Earth forever, what things would change in value? What things would not?

What about immortality and the meaning of life? In our Christian tradition, this life is merely a portal to the next, from which it gets its significance. Immortality – everlasting life – is the ultimate reward, but it is also an aspect of the ultimate punishment. We’ve all heard the question: where do you wish to spend eternity?

The standard caricatures of Heaven carry a general promise of eternal bliss. Heaven is a place void of unfulfilled needs. But does not the idea of continual bliss or ecstasy seem a bit tedious? An unchanging eternity of subjective bliss would eliminate the joys of curiosity, exploration, discovery, learning and growth – all of which engage change. Other things we value, such as service and self-sacrifice, would lose their meaning in Heaven.

Question: What role, if any, does Heaven or an afterlife play in your life?

Question: What attributes or conditions do you hope are revealed in Heaven?

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 6"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, October 24, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

Religion and Values

How can you talk about values without talking about religion? After all, many believers see values as grounded in religion. But does this view imply people who do not share your religious beliefs lack values or do not act ethically? Few support this claim.

Question: What values do you believe are grounded in religion? What values are not?

Some argue that values should be talked about independent of religion. They see a tension between ethics and religious belief. The argument goes something like this: For many religions, action in this life is rewarded or punished in the next life. But action toward reward or away from punishment – action based on self-interest – is not genuinely ethical. A religious believer may ‘do the right thing’ simply because it is the right thing to do. But if one believes in Heaven and Hell, how can one be certain that reward (Heaven) or punishment (Hell) is not one’s motivation?

This is not an altogether modern critique. Consider the ‘Book of Job’ in the Bible. One of the major themes in Job is about being good and being rewarded. According to the wisdom tradition in the Hebrew Bible, God keeps order in the world by rewarding the good and punishing the evil. Job is introduced as a prosperous man, blameless and upright, who fears God and avoids evil. But his accuser raises the question: Does Job fear God for nothing? His accuser concedes Job fears God – he follows all the rules – but that’s because God’s paying him off. Take away Job’s wealth, states his accuser, and Job will curse God to his face. How does Job respond? To find out, I recommend you read the Book of Job.

Question: So, do you fear God for nothing? And what’s so bad about self-interest? 

Plato argued whatever grounds ethics, it cannot be divine command. Is an action right because God commands it, or does God command us to do it because it is right? If the latter, then whether something is right is something beyond God – a standard that guides even Him.

Well, what to make of all this? It’s important to remember there are values and then there are religious values. Religious values arise because religious belief asks us to live up to a different, so-called ‘higher’ standard. The Greeks, for example, had little to say about faith, hope or charity. Of what value is piety to an atheist?

Question: It appears non-believers get off easy. True or False? 


Life’s Horrors

Life is filled with arbitrary and freakish horrors, natural and man-made (see list). Natural evils include natural disasters, famine, and disease – ‘acts of God’. Man-made evils are all too common and include war, crime, and pollution. When something bad happens to you, how often do you say to yourself: ‘why me?’ or ‘where’s the justice?’ Suffering, particularly our suffering, is more often than not viewed as unjustified.

We are misled by a picture of a ‘normal life’ that rarely exists. We picture a normal life as one of development in childhood, joys in marriage and child-rearing, a fulfilling career, reflection in retirement and, at a ripe old age, death in our sleep. We think this is how life is supposed to play out; if we get anything else, we tend to feel cheated.

Question: Were you to pick another person at random from the contemporary world, what are the chances his or her life would be as good as yours?

One conclusion drawn from life’s horrors appears in many religious traditions. And that is there are things of value that could not exist without certain evils. Charity requires those in need. Sympathy requires those in pain. Courage requires those in fear. 

It’s been said suffering builds character. Perhaps, but here’s the rub. Do these higher order values or ‘greater goods’ – those goods that could not exist without suffering – justify the horrors that make them possible? Consider a case in which one person is in pain and another acts out of sympathy. If a genuinely sympathetic person were given the option of extinguishing the pain and the possibility of sympathy for it, he or she would certainly take that option. Food banks are a blessing, but ending hunger is better.

Question: Does the sum total of greater goods (1) equal (2) compensate (3) justify the sum total of suffering in the world? 

Suffering does inspire many to act sympathetically, and that is a good thing. But how could the Holocaust possibly be justified? 

Enter the ‘Problem of Evil’. Some suggest it is a ‘problem’ only for religious traditions that believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and beneficent God. The 18th century Scottish philosopher, David Hume, pulled no punches when he wrote: “Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” 

Try as we might, we cannot dodge these questions. Yet, with all due respect for Hume, consider this. Let’s remove God from the debate – does that solve the problem of evil? Evil is a problem whether one believes in God or not. Moreover, Hume himself offers no solution to the problem of evil.

Question: How might we respond to the problem of evil? Try not to think about it? Leave it to God? Come up with some plausible ‘answer’?

Free Will

I wish I had the answer to the problem of evil, but I don’t. I’m confident God has the answer. But that raises yet another problem. Despite a great deal of progress in the philosophy of religion, life’s horrors challenge the notion that God is leading all things toward the good. The argument goes this way. God, who guides everything to the good, would have to manipulate our choices. A good that is ultimately inevitable is one that no one need strive for. If God is going to make everything come out right no matter what I do, it doesn’t matter what I do. Can this be so? 

The possibility that we lack free will violates our common sense. Moreover, morality is grounded in freedom – free choice. We judge some acts as moral thus worthy, and other acts as immoral thus unworthy, perhaps evil. But we must be free to willingly choose such actions; otherwise deliberation is pointless, moral responsibility evaporates, and justice is rendered moot. Equally, we must accept the fact that suffering is a product of our free will. But if God has seen fit to endow us with free will, there is value in our efforts to combat evil and make things better. 

Question: Would you relinquish your free will if, by doing so, evil would cease to be?

Life’s Horrors

Natural Evils:
Ash Borer, Gypsy Moth, Snakehead Fish
Killer Bees, Global Honey Bee die-off, Mad Cow disease
Bird Flu pandemic, AIDS, Global warming/cooling
Physical Disability, Mental Illness, Autism
Attention Deficit Disorder, Pestilence, Famine 
Mega-disasters: hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, forest fires, etc.
Runaway greenhouse effect, Earth ozone layer depletion, Climate change 
Earth magnetic field reversal, Asteroid/Comet collision, Quasar radiation burst 
Sun burns out, Expanding/collapsing universe

Man-made Evils:
War, Terrorism, Genocide
Torture, Ethnic Cleansing, Forced Migration
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons trafficking, ‘Rogue Nations’
Nuclear waste, Nuclear winter, Space junk
Racism, Hate groups, Religious cults
Organized crime, Street Crime, Domestic violence
Slavery, Elicit Drugs, Energy crisis
Pollution, Crumbling infrastructure, Fresh water shortage
Over-population, Poverty, Homelessness 
Economic collapse, Government/Corporate spying, ‘Afluenza’
Traffic Congestion, Road Rage, Identity theft 
Government/Corporate corruption, Obesity, Human cloning
‘Pop Culture’, Suburban Sprawl, Self-replicating robots

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 7"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, October 31, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

Objective Value

Is there an objective side to value? Here, the question is one regarding the sources of value: Is value tied merely to subjective states, or something more?

Objective value is often equated with intrinsic value. But how do we test whether or not something has intrinsic value? Philosopher, G. E. Moore, devised a method to do so. In order to arrive at a correct decision, it is necessary to consider what things are such that, if they existed by themselves, in absolute isolation, we should yet judge their existence to be good. We can apply Moore’s test in asking whether beauty is intrinsically good, even if unperceived. First, we imagine a universe with planets that have the beauty of sunrise over the Grand Canyon. Then, we imagine a universe of nothing but black smog in the dark. If the first universe is better than the second, beauty has intrinsic value – even if not perceived. 

Question: Apply Moore’s absolute isolation test to pleasure. Does pleasure possess intrinsic value?

We can explore further this question of objective value by using a few examples. The first example involves Alan the artist. Alan is depressed because his paintings are receiving no recognition. To cheer him up, a friend devises a scheme to fake the sale of Alan’s paintings at a local gallery for six figures apiece. Alan’s spirits soar because he believes (mistakenly) that he is finally being recognized as a great artist. Now consider two possible worlds involving Alan. One is the world just described, where Alan is deceived about his paintings and dies happily, thinking he was a success. The other world is just like the first, except that Alan is not deceived. His paintings are recognized for their genuine artistic merit, and again Alan dies happily. 

We begin to understand what objective value is all about when we ask whether it would make any difference to Alan which of these worlds he lived in. Granted, Alan is subjectively happy in both worlds. But like most of us, he is apt to choose the second world. And by doing so Alan is declaring that subjective happiness is not regarded as the final measure of value. 

Question: In Alan’s case, what is the final measure of value?

The next example concerns a man and woman, David and Sarah, who fall in love, marry, and become soul mates. Tragically, Sarah is killed in a plane crash. David mourns her loss and finds it near impossible to move on. Years pass and he encounters a mystic who can conjure up what seem to be real figures from the past. The mystic conjures up his long-dead wife. Before David’s eyes she takes physical form, embodying the beauty and vigor of his lost wife. She’s a good conversationalist and lover; and, from the outside, indistinguishable from Sarah. They renew their relationship, torrid at first, until David realizes it is not his real wife but a phantom wife conjured up from his past. He is crushed for he dearly loved his wife.

Question: What is it that the phantom wife lacks? 

For Alan, what’s important is ‘worthiness for glory’ – glory, defined by St. Thomas Aquinas as ‘clear recognition with praise’. Who among us would appreciate adulation based on false premises? Alan wanted his paintings to be objectively worthy of it. The problem with actual praise (glory, honor, esteem, etc.) is that it requires ‘an audience fit to render it’. And in today’s celebrity culture, that audience is often lacking. For David, what’s important is ‘worthiness for love’. To love something, St. Augustine said, is to want it to be for its own sake. If David cared only about the outer appearance of the wife, what she could do for him, the phantom wife would have been just as good. But the phantom wife, identical to Sarah on the outside, was not identical on the inside. 

The next example concerns brains in vats and a ‘magic button’. Your entire sensory input comes through your nervous system. We could, in principle then, hook you up as a brain in a vat and, with the aid of a super-computer, provide you with an entirely simulated life. We could give you your best subjective life. All your troubles … gone! You want to be a ‘rock star’? You want to change the world? We can supply the stream of sensory input necessary to ‘make it all happen’. Now suppose there is a button in front of you – a magic button – that could do this for all living people and for all generations to come. Pressing the button will convert us and all our descendants into brains in vats, living our best possible pseudo-lives.

Question: Would you press the button?

Of course, what you lose when you press the button is contact with reality. If there is something wrong with pressing the button, then, value is grounded at least in part in something beyond subjective states. What might that be?

Question: Perhaps the magic button was pressed 1000 years ago. Perhaps we are ‘living’ in some sort of virtual reality simulator. Any way to tell?

Question: If pressing the magic button is wrong; might not certain forms of drug abuse be wrong for the same reason?

We may claim to value reality, integrity, truth and so on, but our actions speak otherwise. Millions of us enjoy pro wrestling. Millions enjoy computer games that suspend reality. We watch cartoons and believe in Santa Claus. In poker, bluffing is a developed skill. What’s going on?

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
Liturgy Planning
A Presentation by Mike Kreutzer
Sunday, November 7, 2010

Options for Use in the Ho1y Eucharist

from The Book of Common Prayer (BCP), The Book of Occasional Services (BOS), and Enriching Our Worship (EOW) 


Opening Acclamations: 
BCP, page 355-- General, Easter, Lent 
EOW, page 50-2 General, Advent, Easter, Lent 

Hymn of Praise: Kyrie, Trisagion, Gloria, "or some other song of praise" (BCP, page 356) 

Collects: those in the BCP or, on "green Sundays:' the ten in EOW pages 51-52 

Readings: The Lectionary, three-year cycle {can-be extended) 

The Prayers of the People: one of the six forms in BCP or any following the guidelines of BCP page 359

Confession of Sin: BCP page 360, EOW page 56, -or Prayers -of the People, Form VI -(BCP page 393); the Confession may be omitted "on occasion" 

Eucharistic Prayers: BCP Prayers A, B, C and D; EOW Prayers 1,2 and 3 

The Prayer after Communion: 2 in BCP pages 365-6; 2 in EOW, page 69-70 

The Blessing: optional- BCP page 366; EOW pages 70-71; Seasonal Blessings in BOS pages 22-29 ("Prayer over the People" during Lent), or other forms 


Liturgical Resources Used at St. Mark's 

The Episcopal Church:
> The Book of Common Prayer 
> The Book of Occasional Services 
> Enriching Our Worship 
> Holy Women, Holy Men 

The Church of England, Common Worship 

The Anglican Church of Canada, The Book of Alternative Services 

The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, A New Zealand Prayer Book 

The Anglican Church of the West Indies, The Book of Common Prayer 

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Evangelical Lutheran Worship 

Other resources or "home-made" materials.

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 8"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, November 14, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

Life’s Priorities

If you have something precious, something that must be spent rather then simply held, you will want to spend it well. You do have something precious that must be spent, not held: your life. How you spend your life will depend in large measure on what you want out of life. So the first question to ask is: What do you want from life? Life has a lot to offer, so this becomes a question of priorities. Establishing life priorities is important for three reasons:

· ‘Be careful what you want, because you might just get it.’
· People sometimes work very hard for something, then act very peculiarly when they get it.
· If one knows what one really wants, there may be easier ways to get it. 

Question: Imagine some of the good things life has to offer. What’s most important?

Most people go through their lives without ever determining what they value most. Is happiness on your mental list? Happiness is too vague. What is it that makes you happy? What about health, wealth, and freedom?

Question: Speaking of wealth; what priority do you give money? How does money derive its value?

Question: Consider love, recognition, and talent. If you could have only one of these, which would it be?

Question: Do you think there’s a single ‘highest good’ or ‘top priority’?

Most societies and their governments establish priorities to guide domestic life. If you think establishing personal (micro) priorities is challenging, you can just imagine the difficulty in coming up with national (macro) priorities. ‘Opportunity costs and benefits’, once considered, lead to inevitable tradeoffs. Universal ascent is all but impossible. But we press on as a nation for we have no other choice.

Question: Consider the society we currently find ourselves. Is achieving the ‘American Dream’ the top priority? If not, what should be our top priority?

Question: What exactly is the ‘American Dream’? Is it susceptible to cultural shifts?

Question: Has the recent economic downturn initiated a cultural shift? Has it caused you to readjust your priorities?
What Ought We Do?

This question – the driving force behind ethics – has been with us for millennia. We begin with moral intuitions which lead the way toward moral principles and beyond toward moral/ethical theories. There are four main ethical theories, the first two we examined in Session 3. Each has much to offer; no single theory dominates. 

· Utilitarianism. An action is moral/ethical if it results in good consequences.
· Deontology. An action is moral/ethical if the motive behind it is good.
· Divine Command. An action is moral/ethical if it is in harmony with God’s commands.
· Virtue Ethics. An action is moral/ethical if performed by a person possessing all the virtues.

Question: Is ethics fundamentally a matter of following rules or something else?

Indeed, many people tend to think of ethics as a list of dos and don’ts, much in the style of the Ten Commandments. And recall, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, thought to be (at least by Kant) an infallible overarching rule for ethical action. But can a workable set of rules be developed to avoid moral confusion and resolve moral dilemmas?

In any situation, there are a number of demands on you: your prima facie obligations. Your obligation is what you should do all things considered. The metaphor for decision in such cases is ‘weighing’. Is there a rule for how to ‘weigh’ competing prima facie obligations? Some cases are clear. Should I lie to save a life? You have both a prima facie obligation to tell the truth and to save a life. Lying is always prima facie wrong. But in this case your obligation to save a life ‘outweighs’ your obligation to tell the truth. 

Question: Think of a real case which forced you to balance competing values. What guided your deliberations? What ‘rules’, if any, did you employ?

Ethical rules are near impossible to formulate, though many have tried. Our knowledge of our own language is a similar case in which rules are extremely difficult to formulate. A child picks up knowledge of the language by the age of three or four. Yet hundreds of linguists have been working for decades to formulate that knowledge in terms of rules and are still a long way from success. We learn ethics like we master language; by practice rather than learning rules.

Values and the Future 

Knowledge of the history of our ethical conceptions can make us rethink and reevaluate them, and may even lead us to change them. To see how, let’s go back 150 years – just prior to our Civil War. Few ethical judgments are clearer to us today than this: Slavery was deeply and horribly wrong. How could anyone ever have thought otherwise? Well, back then many did. One of the basic themes in apologetics for slavery is that slaves have racial characteristics that make slavery appropriate or beneficial for them. Another theme is that slavery is justified by the Bible or the history of great civilizations. A third theme is that American slavery was a benefit to the slaves when compared to the lives they would have lived in Africa. 

What are we to make of these proslavery apologetics? It appears that these claims were actually believed by many whites at the time, particularly in the south. Should they have known better? It can be argued that they should have, that a glimpse at their own history and cultural situation should have made them suspicious of moral beliefs tailored to their personal advantage. 

It’s a lesson that still applies today. If our moral concepts coincide all too well with our personal advantage, perhaps we should be suspicious as well. The fact that the world matches our moral conceptions may indicate that we have succeeded in making the world a better place. Or, it may indicate that our situation has biased our moral conceptions.

Question: What moral conceptions might we mistrust now? Slavery, justified 150 years ago, appalls us today. When society looks back on us 150 years from now, what do you think they will find most appalling?

St. Mark’s Adult Education Meeting Summary
"Questions of Value, Session 9"
An In-Depth Discussion Led by Wayne Harper
Sunday, November 21, 2010

* NOTE:  The materials offered were borrowed and adapted for our use from two primary sources: ‘Questions of Value’ taught by Patrick Grim and ‘The Quest for Meaning: Value, Ethics, and the Modern Experience’ taught by Robert Kane. Both are courses produced by The Teaching Company.

                                                      Questions of Value*

Meaning, Purpose and Belief

Take a moment to relax, clear your mind, and ponder this eternal question. 

Question: Why am I here?

Surely, there must be a reason, perhaps many reasons. I am here thanks to my parents’ ability and willingness to procreate, and their parents, and so on through the generations. If my lineage had been interrupted for some reason, I would not be here. 

Some prefer to take a much broader view. Humans are here as a result of ‘creation’. It started with the ‘Big Bang’, followed by the formation of stars and planets, followed by the emergence of life on planet Earth, followed by a highly improbable ‘random walk’ taken by a series of ancestral life forms over the course of billions of years – evolution for short – that managed to avoid numerous extinctions, and culminated in you and I. 

The late paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote on page 175 of his 1996 book, ‘Full House’: “If we could replay the game of life again and again … the vast majority of replays would never produce (on the finite scale of a planet’s lifetime) a creature with self-consciousness. Humans are here by the luck of the draw, not the inevitability of life’s direction or evolution’s mechanism.” Gould makes the point over and over in his book that humans – you and I – are nothing more than a statistical outlier in the full distribution of life on Earth. Gould credits bacteria as the dominate life form on Earth. Bacteria constitute the bulk of life on Earth today as they did billions of years ago.

Gould’s claims – probably not what you wanted to hear – are backed up by science. Still, Gould implies humans are ‘special’ insofar as we are an extremely complex and rare life form, the only life form ‘blessed’ with self-consciousness. But that’s about it.

Question: So, given these ‘facts’, can we say there is any meaning or purpose to our lives? Without meaning or purpose, what value do we have? Lastly, do you agree with Gould that self-consciousness is a ‘blessing’?

Our efforts so far point out that values are inescapable for creatures like us. A life guided by some form of value is inescapable. Contrast this with the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals, for all intents and purposes, live in the present. Humans live in the present but also possess the mental ability to ‘live’ in the past and future.

Question: Without a past to reflect upon or a future to anticipate, what values, if any, are diminished or lost? 

The early 19th century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism, maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including absurdity, angst, alienation and despair. Kierkegaard seems to be on to something. After all, most of us claim to value personal responsibility and quickly grow weary of ‘whiners’ in our midst. But bad things happen to all of us; frustration is an all too common emotion. Life can wear you down. 

Question: How might we rise above our circumstances, and give our lives meaning?

Let’s turn our attention to belief, specifically religious belief. Two trends have made religious belief problematic in this day and age. One is the fact of a plurality of religions which creates uncertainty. Two is the pervasive secularization of everyday life, a trend that often undermines the sense of sacredness essential to religious belief and life. Two opposed reactions to these trends are common in today’s world. One is fundamentalist retrenchment. Two is a secular drift toward skepticism that rejects religion altogether. The big question is whether these two responses are the only options open to us.

A religion is not just a theory of reality, though it is that. It is also a theory of value embodied in a way (or path) of life. Buddhists speak of the Noble Eightfold Path or Way. The central notion of Chinese religious tradition is the Tao, which literally means Way. The Hindu tradition speaks of different yogas, or paths toward liberation. Christ said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life…” 

At the summit of religious theories of reality and value, the supreme reality and supreme good tend to converge. In Christianity, the supreme reality is God, the supreme value is love; and we’re all familiar with the claim, ‘God is Love’. A consequence of this convergence of reality and value – differently construed in different religions – is that one can seek to know the supreme reality by seeking the supreme value, by living a certain way, since the two ultimately converge. To seek is to embark on a mission or quest. In the present context, it suggests a quest for meaning, purpose, and value. 

Question: Do you see yourself embarked on any sort of quest? 

Summing Up

Up to now we’ve spent a lot of time and effort addressing questions of value. I hope it’s been worthwhile. Though answers may continue to elude us, there’s value in asking the questions. Whether or not you’re aware of it, you’ve been asked to open your mind (at least temporarily), encouraged to entertain contrasting viewpoints, and compelled to think more deeply in pursuit of understanding and clarity. Socrates would be proud.

Last Question: What have you learned?

Return to Christian Education