Why Don't We Value Our Values?
One has to wonder about the state of ethics and principles in our society. We are pressured from every angle to adopt stances on issues and problems, many of which we know almost nothing about. What I mean is that very few of us actually research an issue when it comes to our attention. We get a piece of this and a piece of that from the newspaper, the evening or morning news broadcast, a 3-minute news cap on the radio while driving to or from work, or a flash headline from one of the many web sites that vie for enough of our attention to make their site our homepage.
Given the reality of our information resources and the scant attention we pay to the details, it's a wonder any of us can postulate an intelligent, well-informed opinion about any topic. Add to these dynamics the reality of human nature, which causes us to fill a void of information with either emotion or past experience, and we end up with a nation full of people that react, overreact or ignore the matters that occur around us.
It is not that we choose ignorance or apathy, it is more that these states are thrust upon us in a universal manner. We are so busy doing what we do that we don't have (or don't make) time to fully research and understand the issues. We get involved in what we do. Just making ends meet consumes our time. It doesn't matter what it is that we do. The alcoholic homeless person is just as wrapped up in his or her daily activities as the busy career woman with three kids. The street junkie supporting a $150 a day habit is as busy getting things done as is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. It doesn't seem to matter what lifestyle one leads, we all get tied up in, and completely tied to, that which we do. We get so wrapped up that we barely have time to investigate anything of consequence.
When we look at the pace of our lives carefully, we find that most of us form our opinions on the basis of almost no information at all.
Now, we must stop for a moment to examine the word "information." When I teach courses on ethics, philosophy, computer applications, computer science, writing or research methods, I am always pushing my students to understand the difference between "data" and "information." One of the definitions I ask students to explore defines data as just a set of facts, while information is data that has been 1) organized, 2) analyzed, and 3) is useful. Using the criteria in those distinct definitions, I illustrate the difference by offering a list of data:
e.g. friend, Mexican, green eyes, brown shoes, six feet tall, blond hair and button-down shirts
Looking at this list one can imagine what are the topic or topics of discussion might be, but there is no way to clearly understand what we are discussing. We can only surmise what I am trying to convey by spurting out this list. If, however, I add some organization (in this case sentence structure), I can bring order, detail, analysis and meaning to the matter:
e.g. I have a friend that is a Mexican. He has green eyes and insists on wearing brown shoes all the time. He only likes to date women that are six feet tall, but doesn't like women with blond hair. Having a casual attitude, he hates wearing button-down shirts.
I intentionally use this approach to incite some critical thinking about how we deal with data and information. Once the students realize the difference between data and information, we can move onto real analysis and critical thinking about the more substantive and probative matters. It is at this point that we actually uncover a major problem in our society. We have been told that we have moved from an industrial society to a service society, and then to an information society. (The term "economy" can be substituted for "society.") The reality is that we are a "data" society. We rely upon 10-30 seconds of data to provide us with our "news" and actually believe we are well informed.
Those of us that have had conflicts with our loved ones know that the vast majority of our conflicts have stemmed from miscommunications. We partially understood what our loved ones were trying to tell us, or vice versa. What we heard and what was intended are not quite the same. In the void of clear, complete, concise and congruent communication we fill in the blanks, often with emotion. The emotional response usually reveals itself in anger, hurt feelings, disappointment, defensiveness and overreaction to the miscommunication. It is my experience that there are very few of us that have not lived this experience in some form or another. Because we love the people that are involved in these conflicts, we tend to work things out and maintain the relationship.
But these interpersonal conflicts arising out of reacting to "data" are commonplace. If these conflicts are common in our personal lives, we can extend the analysis to our professional experiences. Anyone observing the typical corporate enviornment can see these dynamics in paly on any given day. Extending the analysis just a bit further, we can find similar dynamics in our politics. Anyone observing either house of congress in session, trying to pass a bill into law, would acknowledge that there is a hell of a lot of miscommunication occurring within the chambers.
Looking at the differences between data and information requires making the time to organize, analyze, understand and decide what to do. The process of examining the difference slows us down so that we can properly attend to the important issues, to question the gaps in the data that causes us to rush to judgment.
My wife, who I love dearly, is a good example of what I speak. She is a scholarship graduate of Purdue University. She is an excellent accountant that has received praise from almost every employer for whom she has worked. She works crossword, logic and other word problems at a level that would allow her to compete on a national level. But when it comes to examining the world's events, she would rather spend her time doing something else. While I want to watch the more in-depth television programs aired on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel or the like, she would rather watch "Blue Collar TV" or "something else." When we do engage in deeper conversations, she relies on the teaching her parents or church pastors provided her to fill in the gaps of information.
Needless to say, we watch a lot of television in opposite rooms of the house. However, we have had serious discussions on issues of great importance, such as the debate regarding Terri Schiavo. My in-laws, being very conservative Pentecostal Christians, were on the side of the parents, arguing that only God has the final say in life or death. The medical evidence of Ms. Schiavo's condition was irrelevant to the matter. The fact that Mr. Schiavo had spent so many years spending money on maintaining Terri was overridden by the fact that there was a huge settlement to his favor. The fact that the settlement only reimbursed Mr. Schiavo for a large portion of money already spent, and not completely, seemed to escape my in-laws and most of the conservative Christians that got involved in the debate. The fact that Terri's parents and the conservative politicians taking up their cause violated established legal principles and precedents was ignored in the arguments. The fundamental Christian doctrine that the relationship between a husband and wife is so sacred that the Bible declares that no one should interfere with their affairs, not even parents, was also ignored by both sides of the debate.
After our discussions regarding the missing data, and hammering the data into information, my wife was able to cast aside the emotional and experiential fillers and, while still relying upon carefully considered Christian values, arrive at the conclusion that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die without further intervention.
The Schiavo case was important to me because I have been teaching Allied Health courses on legal and ethical issues over the last three years. It became especially important as one of the instructors I supervised was a staunch conservative Baptist Christian and was presenting the case with only the Christian values offered by her church. She was not open to other points of view. That in itself is not an issue. However, she was also not open to reading more on the case before presenting it to the students. She was also not open to discussing the Church's views and traditions on the right to life and the right to die with dignity. She was not open to discussion of how the Church arrived at the values it offered, how her particular pastor arrived at his conclusions, or the history of the Church on issues of life and death. She was unaware that the Church's stance, in almost every denomination, on life and death issues in medicine and abortion were only formed in the mid to late 1800s.
Here we had an instructor with automatic authority teaching an ethical position on an issue she had not fully researched. Neither had she really explored her own values, the teachings of her pastor, or the history of her religion on these matters. She adopted a defensive posture on the entire discussion and only had room for her emotional and experiential conclusions.
The trouble with emotional and experiential conclusions is that they are usually incomplete, erroneous and damaging. Take for instance the conclusions drawn by many about welfare. When we think about welfare many of us think about people (mostly women) sitting on their posteriors, having multiple children by multiple partners, collecting large sums of money. Additionally, we think of people collecting welfare through fraudulent means. Some even think of thousands of dollars given to new immigrants, many of whom were previously enemies in a past war, so that they do not have to work.
The realities of our welfare system are quite different. The vast majority of people receiving welfare are poor white folks who have suffered economic hardships. The majority of people on welfare are barely receiving enough money and aid to pay their bills. The policies and practices of our welfare system have historically punished those that have sought work but could only find jobs that paid less than the aid provided by welfare programs. The so-called workfare programs offer training for jobs that, while in high demand, pay on the lowest scales. The reality is that for every one example of someone that succeeds through the workfare program, four or more families suffer further hardship at the hands of the welfare system. The reality is that the vast majority of people involved with child and family protective services are involved due to poverty issues and an unfair system that does not focus on abuse if the family can show a decent financial status.The reality is that most fraud statistics cited by conservative politicians are inaccurate.
The reality is that this dynamic of inaccurate fraud statistics is world-wide:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0311/S00160.htm
http://www.welfare-news.info/index.htm
http://www.wise4living.com/mfraud/welfare.htm
http://www.crcmich.org/Almanac/Programs/prog.html
The reality is that 90% of welfare fraud is committed by less than 10% of those that have received welfare. The reality is that we spend almost twice as much tracking and prosecuting welfare fraud than we actually lose in the fraud itself. The reality is that we spend almost 20 times our entire welfare budget on corporate subsidies, tax incentives and corporate fraud condoned within defense industry having contracts with our federal government. More fraud exists in the buidling of a tank, fighter jet or naval vessel than in a year's worth of welfare. More fraud exists in the no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton in Iraq than in the entire welfare budget for New York or California.
But our emotional and experiential fillers convince us that welfare is the downfall of our society. It is not that our welfare system is without flaws, In short, our welfare system sucks and is wrought with waste, fraud and unnecessary expense. Our welfare system, especially the workfare component, is degrading, embarrassing and ineffective. But so is our tax system.
Consider that most of the richest people in the United States pay the least percentage of their incomes, and many, because they have the money to manipulate the system, pay almost no taxes at all... and they do so legally. Consider that we often are told that the Social Security system, which is always touted as being on the brink of being broke, is also welfare. But didn't workers contribute to this system for over 60 plus years? So, isn't Social Security a self-funding system? It was meant to be, but the federal government has raided, manipulated and mismanged the Social Security funds at every possible opportunity. So now we are led to believe that it is the fault of the "welfare system" that Social Security is in chaos. The reality is that if the system had been managed better, it would be working.
But have we stopped to examine the values that underly the welfare system? Isn't it a universal value among all the great religions, including Christianity, to support the poor? In the Islamic tradition alms to the poor, orphans and widows are supposed to be given without fanfare. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition of supporting the poorest citizens calls for "not letting the left hand know what the right hand is giving." The New Testament biblical story of the widow's mite, as well as the parable of the rich man attempting to get into heaven, call Christians to provide for the less fortunate without worry or concern. Jewish and Islamic tradition requires a wealthy families to feed the less fortunate. Indeed, the story of Christ asking to dine at the home of Zaccheus, reflects this tradition of inviting the less fortunate to the hospitality of the well-to-do.
Have we really examined the roots of our values. Do we really understand the traditions and values of our belief systems? Can we genuinely lay claim to values that purport to be religiously grounded? Are we as generous and caring as we proclaim ourselves to be? Do we really value what we claim to value? Are we serving our fellow man the way our understanding of God calls us to serve?
It is our own doing that the "welfare system" doesn't work well. But rather than focusing on making the system work in a manner that is consistent with our values and first principles, we find it easier and more convenient to blame. We are not so much concerned with who we blame as long as we can identify them as someone other than ourselves.
Most of the time we don't want to know. We don't want to look at the root of the problems we face. We don't want to value our values. We want to move life along. We want to get through our to-do lists, impress our bosses and peers, and bask in the glow of our achievements. We have a long history of hypocrisy.
October 16, 2005
Given the reality of our information resources and the scant attention we pay to the details, it's a wonder any of us can postulate an intelligent, well-informed opinion about any topic. Add to these dynamics the reality of human nature, which causes us to fill a void of information with either emotion or past experience, and we end up with a nation full of people that react, overreact or ignore the matters that occur around us.
It is not that we choose ignorance or apathy, it is more that these states are thrust upon us in a universal manner. We are so busy doing what we do that we don't have (or don't make) time to fully research and understand the issues. We get involved in what we do. Just making ends meet consumes our time. It doesn't matter what it is that we do. The alcoholic homeless person is just as wrapped up in his or her daily activities as the busy career woman with three kids. The street junkie supporting a $150 a day habit is as busy getting things done as is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. It doesn't seem to matter what lifestyle one leads, we all get tied up in, and completely tied to, that which we do. We get so wrapped up that we barely have time to investigate anything of consequence.
When we look at the pace of our lives carefully, we find that most of us form our opinions on the basis of almost no information at all.
Now, we must stop for a moment to examine the word "information." When I teach courses on ethics, philosophy, computer applications, computer science, writing or research methods, I am always pushing my students to understand the difference between "data" and "information." One of the definitions I ask students to explore defines data as just a set of facts, while information is data that has been 1) organized, 2) analyzed, and 3) is useful. Using the criteria in those distinct definitions, I illustrate the difference by offering a list of data:
e.g. friend, Mexican, green eyes, brown shoes, six feet tall, blond hair and button-down shirts
Looking at this list one can imagine what are the topic or topics of discussion might be, but there is no way to clearly understand what we are discussing. We can only surmise what I am trying to convey by spurting out this list. If, however, I add some organization (in this case sentence structure), I can bring order, detail, analysis and meaning to the matter:
e.g. I have a friend that is a Mexican. He has green eyes and insists on wearing brown shoes all the time. He only likes to date women that are six feet tall, but doesn't like women with blond hair. Having a casual attitude, he hates wearing button-down shirts.
I intentionally use this approach to incite some critical thinking about how we deal with data and information. Once the students realize the difference between data and information, we can move onto real analysis and critical thinking about the more substantive and probative matters. It is at this point that we actually uncover a major problem in our society. We have been told that we have moved from an industrial society to a service society, and then to an information society. (The term "economy" can be substituted for "society.") The reality is that we are a "data" society. We rely upon 10-30 seconds of data to provide us with our "news" and actually believe we are well informed.
Those of us that have had conflicts with our loved ones know that the vast majority of our conflicts have stemmed from miscommunications. We partially understood what our loved ones were trying to tell us, or vice versa. What we heard and what was intended are not quite the same. In the void of clear, complete, concise and congruent communication we fill in the blanks, often with emotion. The emotional response usually reveals itself in anger, hurt feelings, disappointment, defensiveness and overreaction to the miscommunication. It is my experience that there are very few of us that have not lived this experience in some form or another. Because we love the people that are involved in these conflicts, we tend to work things out and maintain the relationship.
But these interpersonal conflicts arising out of reacting to "data" are commonplace. If these conflicts are common in our personal lives, we can extend the analysis to our professional experiences. Anyone observing the typical corporate enviornment can see these dynamics in paly on any given day. Extending the analysis just a bit further, we can find similar dynamics in our politics. Anyone observing either house of congress in session, trying to pass a bill into law, would acknowledge that there is a hell of a lot of miscommunication occurring within the chambers.
Looking at the differences between data and information requires making the time to organize, analyze, understand and decide what to do. The process of examining the difference slows us down so that we can properly attend to the important issues, to question the gaps in the data that causes us to rush to judgment.
My wife, who I love dearly, is a good example of what I speak. She is a scholarship graduate of Purdue University. She is an excellent accountant that has received praise from almost every employer for whom she has worked. She works crossword, logic and other word problems at a level that would allow her to compete on a national level. But when it comes to examining the world's events, she would rather spend her time doing something else. While I want to watch the more in-depth television programs aired on PBS, Discovery, The Learning Channel or the like, she would rather watch "Blue Collar TV" or "something else." When we do engage in deeper conversations, she relies on the teaching her parents or church pastors provided her to fill in the gaps of information.
Needless to say, we watch a lot of television in opposite rooms of the house. However, we have had serious discussions on issues of great importance, such as the debate regarding Terri Schiavo. My in-laws, being very conservative Pentecostal Christians, were on the side of the parents, arguing that only God has the final say in life or death. The medical evidence of Ms. Schiavo's condition was irrelevant to the matter. The fact that Mr. Schiavo had spent so many years spending money on maintaining Terri was overridden by the fact that there was a huge settlement to his favor. The fact that the settlement only reimbursed Mr. Schiavo for a large portion of money already spent, and not completely, seemed to escape my in-laws and most of the conservative Christians that got involved in the debate. The fact that Terri's parents and the conservative politicians taking up their cause violated established legal principles and precedents was ignored in the arguments. The fundamental Christian doctrine that the relationship between a husband and wife is so sacred that the Bible declares that no one should interfere with their affairs, not even parents, was also ignored by both sides of the debate.
After our discussions regarding the missing data, and hammering the data into information, my wife was able to cast aside the emotional and experiential fillers and, while still relying upon carefully considered Christian values, arrive at the conclusion that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die without further intervention.
The Schiavo case was important to me because I have been teaching Allied Health courses on legal and ethical issues over the last three years. It became especially important as one of the instructors I supervised was a staunch conservative Baptist Christian and was presenting the case with only the Christian values offered by her church. She was not open to other points of view. That in itself is not an issue. However, she was also not open to reading more on the case before presenting it to the students. She was also not open to discussing the Church's views and traditions on the right to life and the right to die with dignity. She was not open to discussion of how the Church arrived at the values it offered, how her particular pastor arrived at his conclusions, or the history of the Church on issues of life and death. She was unaware that the Church's stance, in almost every denomination, on life and death issues in medicine and abortion were only formed in the mid to late 1800s.
Here we had an instructor with automatic authority teaching an ethical position on an issue she had not fully researched. Neither had she really explored her own values, the teachings of her pastor, or the history of her religion on these matters. She adopted a defensive posture on the entire discussion and only had room for her emotional and experiential conclusions.
The trouble with emotional and experiential conclusions is that they are usually incomplete, erroneous and damaging. Take for instance the conclusions drawn by many about welfare. When we think about welfare many of us think about people (mostly women) sitting on their posteriors, having multiple children by multiple partners, collecting large sums of money. Additionally, we think of people collecting welfare through fraudulent means. Some even think of thousands of dollars given to new immigrants, many of whom were previously enemies in a past war, so that they do not have to work.
The realities of our welfare system are quite different. The vast majority of people receiving welfare are poor white folks who have suffered economic hardships. The majority of people on welfare are barely receiving enough money and aid to pay their bills. The policies and practices of our welfare system have historically punished those that have sought work but could only find jobs that paid less than the aid provided by welfare programs. The so-called workfare programs offer training for jobs that, while in high demand, pay on the lowest scales. The reality is that for every one example of someone that succeeds through the workfare program, four or more families suffer further hardship at the hands of the welfare system. The reality is that the vast majority of people involved with child and family protective services are involved due to poverty issues and an unfair system that does not focus on abuse if the family can show a decent financial status.The reality is that most fraud statistics cited by conservative politicians are inaccurate.
The reality is that this dynamic of inaccurate fraud statistics is world-wide:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0311/S00160.htm
http://www.welfare-news.info/index.htm
http://www.wise4living.com/mfraud/welfare.htm
http://www.crcmich.org/Almanac/Programs/prog.html
The reality is that 90% of welfare fraud is committed by less than 10% of those that have received welfare. The reality is that we spend almost twice as much tracking and prosecuting welfare fraud than we actually lose in the fraud itself. The reality is that we spend almost 20 times our entire welfare budget on corporate subsidies, tax incentives and corporate fraud condoned within defense industry having contracts with our federal government. More fraud exists in the buidling of a tank, fighter jet or naval vessel than in a year's worth of welfare. More fraud exists in the no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton in Iraq than in the entire welfare budget for New York or California.
But our emotional and experiential fillers convince us that welfare is the downfall of our society. It is not that our welfare system is without flaws, In short, our welfare system sucks and is wrought with waste, fraud and unnecessary expense. Our welfare system, especially the workfare component, is degrading, embarrassing and ineffective. But so is our tax system.
Consider that most of the richest people in the United States pay the least percentage of their incomes, and many, because they have the money to manipulate the system, pay almost no taxes at all... and they do so legally. Consider that we often are told that the Social Security system, which is always touted as being on the brink of being broke, is also welfare. But didn't workers contribute to this system for over 60 plus years? So, isn't Social Security a self-funding system? It was meant to be, but the federal government has raided, manipulated and mismanged the Social Security funds at every possible opportunity. So now we are led to believe that it is the fault of the "welfare system" that Social Security is in chaos. The reality is that if the system had been managed better, it would be working.
But have we stopped to examine the values that underly the welfare system? Isn't it a universal value among all the great religions, including Christianity, to support the poor? In the Islamic tradition alms to the poor, orphans and widows are supposed to be given without fanfare. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition of supporting the poorest citizens calls for "not letting the left hand know what the right hand is giving." The New Testament biblical story of the widow's mite, as well as the parable of the rich man attempting to get into heaven, call Christians to provide for the less fortunate without worry or concern. Jewish and Islamic tradition requires a wealthy families to feed the less fortunate. Indeed, the story of Christ asking to dine at the home of Zaccheus, reflects this tradition of inviting the less fortunate to the hospitality of the well-to-do.
Have we really examined the roots of our values. Do we really understand the traditions and values of our belief systems? Can we genuinely lay claim to values that purport to be religiously grounded? Are we as generous and caring as we proclaim ourselves to be? Do we really value what we claim to value? Are we serving our fellow man the way our understanding of God calls us to serve?
It is our own doing that the "welfare system" doesn't work well. But rather than focusing on making the system work in a manner that is consistent with our values and first principles, we find it easier and more convenient to blame. We are not so much concerned with who we blame as long as we can identify them as someone other than ourselves.
Most of the time we don't want to know. We don't want to look at the root of the problems we face. We don't want to value our values. We want to move life along. We want to get through our to-do lists, impress our bosses and peers, and bask in the glow of our achievements. We have a long history of hypocrisy.
October 16, 2005
posted by Jim Downey at 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home