GuidoWorld

The Values of Money

May 24, 2009 on 12:08 pm | In General |

Over 15 years ago I began writing a book entitled The Values of Money the following is the Intro to the book. I will use some of my posts to update the book and I will place the updated chapters in the words section of this site next to my other books. This post is lengthy but hopefully you can read it all for the second half of this intro is very important in understanding the book.

Even in a “free” society there are numerous rules and expectations placed upon each citizen. Many of these restrictions are merely recommendations, while others are stringently enforced prohibitions. A society may ask its citizens to be kind and caring while demanding they not do bodily harm to each other. The strictest expectations of society are made into laws while many others become ideals or desirable attributes to work towards.

The majority of these societal guidelines have to do with right conduct and codes of behavior. The number of words in the English language referring to proper human behavior reflects the importance our society places on the art and science of right conduct. Appropriate conduct is an important issue from a democratic as well as spiritual perspective, from a practical as well as idealistic viewpoint.

Some of the words regarding proper conduct have relatively narrow or specific applications such as duties, responsibilities and obligations. Others, such as taboos, rules and laws are terms focusing on prohibitions being placed on us from the outside. Some, like customs and traditions, gain importance from a historical, ethnic or cultural perspective.

The more flexible and comprehensive the term, the more global its application. A few terms, being highly conceptual, deal with the ideal of right conduct from both internal and external origins. Ethics, morals, values, standards and principles are extremely elastic terms intended to address the entire realm of human behavior, thought and intention. These terms deal with not only societal expectations, but those originating internally in an individual’s consciousness.

People talk of personal and individual ethics and morals as often as they do social ones. Decisions based on one’s values and principles are often so pure as to go against the grain of accepted social behavior. When talking of these ideals, one not only hopes to meet social expectations, but surpass them. One’s morals, values, principles, standards and ethics should not be satisfied with meeting society’s minimal expectations, but aspire to the highest form of human conduct attainable.

Though each of these five terms deal with right behavior and conduct, they each have their own separate history and points of emphasis. I cannot speak of what these terms have meant to every one, but I can talk about the people I knew and how they discussed and used these terms.

Since I attended a Catholic grade school, morality was a concept I was introduced to when I was very young. Much of my early education focused on right behavior and on my being a moral person. Even the most trivial and insignificant behavior was often interpreted as being indicative of my inner most character. The nuns and priests routinely evaluated our daily behavior, and labeled each behavior as either immoral and evil, or moral and good.

The emphasis our society places on moral behavior has remained strong over the last few decades. In many ways the discussion has become even more intense and urgent. Though still a flexible concept, morality is more often than not considered to be a religious issue. The bulk of modern discussions place morality in a religious context equating one’s morals with religious conviction and commitment. A moral individual is a God-fearing pious person, whereas all immoral people are either pagans or people whose faith is weak (at least temporarily).

The focus of morality has become more specific through the years. In the 50’s and 60’s morality dealt with every aspect of our behavior, desires and thought. Personal morality was involved whenever an issue regarding our honesty and integrity was called into question.

In the 80’s and 90’s the social discussion of morality has grown even more religious in temperament. People talk of the need for moral instruction implying that humanity is immoral by nature. Most of our interest in morals has shifted to one area of human behavior, that being sexuality. Criminal behavior of all types are still labeled as immoral, but all aberrant and alternative sexual behaviors are stringently attacked as being immoral. The emergence of psychoanalysis, particularly Freudian, with its emphasis on the pervasiveness of the human sex drive and its primal role in neurosis and deviancy has greatly added to our culture’s escalating obsession with morality.

Morality is being reduced to a concept dealing with religious instruction and sexual conservatism. It is becoming a rather rigid ideal focusing on rules and laws and less on individual choices. Any deviancy from the religious sexual norm is immoral regardless of its intent or sincerity. No matter how honest and compassionate a person may be they run the risk of being considered immoral if they are nonreligious or engage in alternative forms of sexuality or sexual lifestyles.

The possibility of being generally moral but promiscuous or sexually flawed is becoming less of an accepted concept. This rather strict definition of morality makes it almost essential that all people must think, act, desire and feel the same. The ability for people to act and be moral is made even more difficult when you consider the fact that no two religions, or even sects have the exact same morality.

Though the proclivity for religious and sexual issues to dominate the popular discussion of morality is hard to over state, we should not be blind to the fact that people’s concern over morals deal with many other issues. The lack of an individual’s morality is looked to as being at the root of all social problems. Crime, violence, drug abuse, divorce, physical and sexual abuse and even gambling, mental disorders and the varied forms of dependency are all thought to be enhanced if not caused by a breakdown in an individual’s morals.

The ability for morality to openly address all issues of human conduct is curtailed when it focuses on sexuality or the dogmatic agendas of religious groups. This is not to deny the sexual and religious aspects of morality, but is only pointed out to protect the purity and flexibility of the ideal.
Equating religion with morality engenders other dangers. One is in having us ignore or minimize the immoral behavior of the clergy and other religious personages. When morality is viewed as being a subset of religious faith and belief, it allows one to view such atrocities as killing in the name of God as a moral act.

Not just morality, but ethics, principles, standards and values have all been contaminated through popular use. Any time one looks at these idealistic concepts one should keep in mind their original intent while analyzing their current usage. The goal of each one of these ideals is right action, and any abuse they endure through popular opinion does not destroy the integrity of their initial purpose.

When growing up I often heard people refer to their or other’s principles. A person resisting popular opinion, or declining a tempting opportunity often was said to do so because of their principles. Where as morality was based on dogma and social laws, principles were more often than not internal mechanisms. The origination of one’s principles were a form of self-consciousness in which a person decided to “do the right thing”.
A principled individual was one who stuck to his position even if it were unpopular or potentially damaging. A principled person feared no hardship, or found no reward worthy of sacrificing their principles.

In the 50’s and 60’s people (especially  men) would announce and enthusiastically defend their opinions in the name of their principles. The willingness to risk the loss of friendship and popularity for the personal honor of sticking to one’s principles was valued by many.
The drawbacks to the age of principles were numerous. Stubbornness and prejudice were often mistaken for principles causing many hateful acts to be done in the name of honor and nobility. Arguments often became quite heated when individuals righteously defended the validity of every one of their opinions as a matter of principle. Close mindedness and intolerance were glorified in the name of one’s principles and made qualities such as compassion, empathy and understanding weaknesses to be defeated. A person able to look at different perspectives was often viewed as wishy-washy and lacking in principles.

The downfall of the red-faced patriot defending his country and the honor of his opinions happened sometime during the 70’s. One could never be sure if the fallout from the Vietnam war or the public amusement of the caricature of Archie Bunker were more responsible for killing the fiery combative nationalist. Yet, in any case the appeal of being principled seemed to die at the same moment as the passionate self-assured political animal.

One has to wonder if we lost more than hot air at the death of the principled blue collar worker. These individuals did more than foster prejudice and intolerance. It was upon their shoulders that the post world war middle class was formed and groomed. Without their determination and pride in America it is doubtful we would ever have become the world’s leading industrial giant.

In the 60’s and 70’s people believed in the power of the individual. Even if blind to its weaknesses, their love of their country was played out in the passion of daily political discussion. Average citizens stood behind their political beliefs and even politicians were known to look for a good debate.
Political animals used to be passionate, self-righteous individuals who would take on all challengers. Even when you disagreed with these principled men, you knew where they stood and had no doubt in their sincerity.

Now, politicians are polite, diplomatic and careful not to alienate their voters. They may attack their opponent, but never the public. A politician is now known as a popularity hound whose opinions are tailored to appeal to the views of the greatest number of voters. Modern elections are often little more than popularity contests in which candidates look for ways to appeal to the most while alienating the least.

When I was young the ideal politician was strong, energetic, charismatic and somewhat daring and controversial. Politicians are no longer rough and strong leaders committed to a cause, but slickly groomed products looking for the largest market share.

Politicians are not the only one’s lacking fire and commitment. Today, the principled average citizen fighting for a cause is viewed at worse a fanatic and at best a crass and socially inept cynic. The belief in the importance of the individual has been replaced with the acceptance of the “game”. Even the most fervent nationalist believes that our government engages in illegal and unethical acts. Yet, most feel that a certain amount of impropriety is needed to win the game, and no matter what our country does its underlying intentions are good. No matter how crooked our government and intelligence agencies are, they are still a far cry more principled and humanitarian than any other nation on the face of the earth.

In the 60’s and 70’s the general populace felt that energetically defending our highest principles was necessary to keep our nation strong. If our principles fell, so would we. Americans took pride in terms such as justice and truth.

Today, we still view our nation as being generally good and as our system of justice (though flawed) as being the best. The old view of a perfect America is now thought to be unrealistic and naive. We, so much smarter now, see no reason to even strive to build a principled nation.

Yet, why should we hold on to an ideal of a nation which we have even lost for ourselves. Most American’s admit that they sometimes lie or cheat for the overall good of their family or career. In fact in recent surveys of college students, over 80% of the students claimed cheating was a necessary element of success. Every salesman knows a certain amount of guile and deceit goes a long way towards keeping one’s job and achieving success. Everyone knows the conflict and stress of life only increases when one tells the truth regardless of the consequences. The truth can hurt, and avoiding or ignoring an unresolvable difference can save a marriage or friendship as well as a business relationship.

It’s hard for us to imagine our leaders being principled when we ourselves have become less principled. In the real world people do what they have to do in the best way possible in a given situation. Most people don’t want to lie or deceive their neighbors, and do so only when they feel the situation demands it.

The lies of most politicians are often ignored or forgiven for the same reasons. A hot-headed principled politician would be viewed as a dangerous player in today’s sophisticated and volatile world affairs. We want our president to be strong, but prudent and realistic in tending to international problems and crisis. Compromises in both the truth and one’s principles are often necessary in diplomacy and economics.

Yet, are our only choices between a rigid, inflexible and bigoted man of principles and an adaptable but somewhat spineless slave to popular opinion? Can a principled leader or politician be both open minded and committed to living our highest ideals?

Standing up for what is right does not necessitate one be close minded. One can be committed to compassion and empathy as strongly as many have been to prejudice. A truly principled person would not be cruel, vicious or close minded. Such behaviors are by definition improper conduct and, therefore, opposed to the true realm of principles.

Yet, expecting our leaders to rise above the corruption in modern politics while we passively (if not reluctantly) accept the lack of principles in our everyday lives is unfair, unrealistic and hypocritical. Our politics would serve little purpose if they did not reflect the way we live our lives.

The responsibility lies on our shoulders. If right conduct became our major priority, a number of principled political candidates would once again surface. Yet, as long as we accept deception as “business as usual”, our politicians will continue to be as corrupt as the nation they lead and represent.

The terms standards and principles were often interchangeable. One’s standards or what one found acceptable, was most likely based on one’s principles. The major difference between the terms was that one’s standards were more open to personal interpretation. While principles were generally thought of as being guidelines to behavior applying to everyone, standards were more a matter of personal choice. My standards in a given area me be higher of lower than yours just due to our priorities. If I were a carpenter my standards regarding the organization of tools would be higher than the average home owner. Likewise, if I were a coach, my standards regarding physical effort would be higher than the casual participant in recreational sports.
While morals, standards and principles were words I often heard spoken, ethics was a word I seldom came across in conversation. Other than occasionally coming across allegations of unethical behavior on television or the newspaper, ethics remained a dormant topic. Yet, I cannot be sure if my experience was common to all or just a result of class consciousness.

Morality, standards and principles were very blue collar topics. Ethics on the other hand was a course offered at universities. Esteemed professions such as medicine and law joined philosophers in discussing the relative merits and problems of ethics while the common man talked of standards and principles. Ethical discussions were an academian’s dream, theoretical, abstract, and reflective. Morals and principles, on the other hand, were often based on “gut feelings”, logic  and religious doctrine, seldom open for discussion or intellectual interpretation (evolution).

Though some of the current debates in medical and legal ethics have become popularized, ethical discussions are generally reserved for academic and philosophic circles. Not tied to religion or ideology ethics remains a relatively pure concept of right conduct. Yet, its theoretical overtones often limit its ability to deal with practical existence. The conceptual doubts and complexities which give philosophical ethics its rigor and beauty bar its being a finished product to be implemented in society.

Unlike the other three terms, values is one I never heard mentioned at all throughout my formative years. My introduction to this term came from pop psychological, anthropological, and sociological texts I read while working with delinquent adolescents. Solely in this context did I hear the word used as therapists and psychologists developed “values clarification” tests and exercises for fellow professionals to administer to their clients.

Values clarification remained a buzz word for a greater part of the 70’s, and only at the end of the decade did its popularity boil over to the general public through talk shows, books on pop psychology, and hip religious services.

As a demonstration to its previous novelty, a 1962 Roget’s College Thesaurus I have does not list values as a synonym for ethics, principles or morals. The term values seldom used before the mid-sixties exploded in popularity over the last three decades.
Values, now, is used far more frequently than ethics, principles or morality. Though morality is still discussed frequently, especially in sexual/religious contexts, values is talked about in almost every social dialogue. One’s values are now discussed in every field from science, politics, and education to religion, psychology and economics.
One has to wonder why values has become the term of choice regarding right conduct and codes of behavior. Why do we prefer to talk about our values rather than our principles, standards, morals or ethics. Is it simply an easier word to say? Does it just have better PR, or the right spokespeople?  Does it have a specific meaning the others don’t which makes it more attractive or applicable?

When searching at possible reasons for the popularity of values we have to look no further than the beginning of this introduction. Values being a relatively new and technical term lacks the negative emotional baggage and stereotypes of the other terms. All the other conceptual terms regarding right conduct are limited and corrupted by their centuries of use.

Yet, this process of elimination logic answers why the other terms have lost popularity more than why values has exploded in usage. There seems to be a need for a better reason to explain the fascination this term currently holds for our culture.

Though somewhat silly sounding, it is true the term has had popular spokesman. Our society’s interest in pop psychology coincided with the explosion of professional usage in that medium. Religious figures too, at that very time period became not only accepting but very interested in psychology. Prior to the seventies many priests and ministers were leery of, if not opposed to, psychology and psychological methods.
During the early seventies many young priests and ministers found their beliefs echoed in the emerging popular theories of psychology. The clergy themselves quickly adopted the term values, and used it as a synonym for morals and morality.

The seventies also signalled the beginning of the topical daytime talk shows. Reflective, provocative and emotional topics  were ripe for discussions regarding what we all hold dear and view as important. Whether the topic was ERA, the KKK, or cross dressing prostitutes, a discussion of people’s values was almost impossible to avoid. Today a swarm of therapists, psychologists, and sociologists are daily paraded by our ears and eyes as they attempt to referee, interpret, and explain the stories being told on TV and radio talk show stages from morning till night.

These factors certainly help in explaining the rise and popularity of using the term values when discussing personal behavior. Yet, I believe people speak so comfortably of personal and family values for another reason. While it is often difficult to rectify one’s ethics, principles and morals with everyday life, it is much easier to have our values adapt to our everyday existence.

Values are based on what we feel has worth, on what one deems as important. There is an intrinsic relationship to values and to  money. Value is the economic term from which “values” was derived.
While ethics, principles and even morals can be idealistic and somewhat unrealistic in today’s world, values is a term firmly anchored in everyday life. Everything we see, touch and feel in life now has a value (worth). Many of our decisions are not necessarily right or wrong, but more often beneficial and productive, or limiting and harmful.

Assessing and evaluating what we value or deem important, helps us deal with the harsh realities of our fast paced life. Our values are reflected in our priorities, in how we spend our time and how we treat our family. In an unethical world one often has to forsake the ideal decision for a practical and attainable one.

Most of us believe that if we lived in a perfect world we would always be moral and ethical. If we had the choice we would live life quite differently than we do. Morally we would never choose to lie, or leave our children in the care of another, but many important and necessary things make us tailor our ideals to the real world. A world of values is much more realistic and attainable, and allows us to set high standards without failing or feeling perpetually guilty.

Since everything in society has a value, it is only logical that we should think in terms of values. Principles, morals and ethics often seem useless unless one is involved in a major decision. One’s values on the other hand can be a part of almost every thought or feeling. It would seem silly to think of making the average purchasing decision based on one’s ethics, but knowing what one values helps in even the most mundane of tasks.
Our lives are increasingly being dominated by economic concerns and making the best decision in an imperfect world. Value is something we come across each day. Our survival depends upon our boss valuing our work, or a customer finding value (worth) in our products or services. Though we would like to be respected for our morals and ethics, our careers seldom are weighed by such lofty ideals.

Much of our day-to-day existence centers around economic concerns. Issues such as sex and religion continue to be important, but even these topics are saturated with economic realities. The one constant in almost every facet of our modern existence is money. It should be no surprise that values are vital in a society which views freedom as its cornerstone and equates free enterprise with personal freedom.

In this book we will look at the impact our values have on the many disciplines, professions and activities which comprise modern life in America. We will strive to assess in what ways our emphasis on value and monetary worth is changing the way our society functions.

Is the supremacy of the term purely one of convenience, or does it signify a radical change in the way we evaluate our behavior and the society in which we live? How much does the economic aspect of value effect our values? Is our emphasis on values indicative of a downfall in our respect for principles, morals and ethics? Or is our preference for values just a way for us to avoid engaging in the bigotry, elitism and self©righteousness contaminating the other ideals?

One thing is for certain, and that is even though the terms are similar they are not interchangeable. Though each term deals with human conduct and behavior they each have their own applications and points of emphasis. Let’s now take a long look at some of the ramifications of living in a value obsessed society.

Jim Guido

PS While much of this could be written today, the emerence of Fox News has restored the red-faced patriot that appeared to be extinct in the early nineties.