I’m a Values Voter. Aren’t You?

In this election season, editorials seem to pound hard on the difference between “Values” voters (usually conservative Republicans) and others. But, really, are any of us willing to be considered “Valueless” voters? What happens when we allow only one group to claim such a name? And, in some situations, to usurp the name for values we don’t agree with? Can we reclaim our true heritage and call out for the values that we stand for and that we wish everyone would stand for? Can we, in the process, stand up for some values that we all can agree on, rather than focusing on those that polarize us? What might those values be? And after we identify them, can we challenge one another to think carefully about how to live them out, without imposing our choices on others?

For instance, “The Golden Rule” might be the first we could all agree to. Some rendition of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been around since Aristotle in every major religion and philosophy. It seems to me that it has pretty good credibility as a value that we all ought to stand squarely in the center of. What might it mean to seek fully live out the Golden Rule? Well, most of us want people to respect us – our words, our choices, our actions – and to behave with respect toward us in their words and action. So it stands to reason that we ought to respect others if we are to treat others as we wish to be treated. Most of us also want people to act kindly toward us, reaching out to us when we are in need, helping us when they can, and not treating us meanly. So, choosing to do the same for others would also fit within The Golden Rule.

Justice seems closely related to respect and kindness – that is, it doesn’t seem fair to treat some people kindly and respectfully without treating others the same way. We want to be treated fairly, and so we ought to also treat others fairly. We ought to figure out how to resolve justly the inevitable conflicts that arise. Understandably, if we have been mistreated, it may be harder to behave kindly and respectfully in response. But even if we eliminate those situations, that still leaves plenty of opportunity for being fair toward others.

Being kind and just also seems to include taking on our share of responsibilities. That is, we need to take care of ourselves, our family members, and our property. We need to keep our commitments, carrying out the jobs that we are responsible for when we are responsible to do so. We want others to keep their commitments to us, or to be responsible toward us, doing what they have promised. We don’t want to bear the whole load of family or workplace or community responsibilities. Responsibility means people working together to take on their fair share and to follow through. Without carrying out our responsibilities, other people will have to pick up them up or spend money to fix what we have failed to do; neither of which seems fair.

Further, if we fail in our responsibilities, others will not find us trustworthy – they may consider us undependable or childish. They will simply stop depending on us because we have shown that we do not consistently behave well or do the right thing. And, in addition, when we combine responsibility and kindness or caring, it seems relatively obvious that we will need to give back to our communities some of what we have received, will need to take care of our communities, and will, as a result, offer some of what we have to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in great need. And this we might call citizenship, or giving back.

The “Character Counts!” community considers some rendition of these five character traits to be the building blocks of their “values” agenda. But I find that it also takes wisdom to know when to do what to whom. And it takes courage to actually act on that wisdom, particularly in the face of opposition or when we might lose something that matters to us if we do act. I think it takes a strong sense of self and self control not to lash out at others when we are frustrated or angered by injustice or the lack of responsibility in others; as well as to have the backbone to act on what we believe.

And although there are some values that so-called conservative Republican “Values Voters” espouse that others will disagree strongly with, would anyone disagree with the need for these ten values? I am sure we can think of other important values; but as a minimum, can we stand up for these? Can we make a conscious effort to evaluate each of our actions each day on the basis of whether we are shooting for the optimal with respect to these values? Can we get out of a reactive mode into a more proactive stance, advocating that everyone in our families and workplaces and communities at least try to live out these values? Can we expect the others around us to commit to these values, and can we encourage them and ask them to encourage us to do the same? If we can, then I think we reclaim our positions as “Values Voters,” even if we are not Republican, conservative, or Christian. The question is, will we?

Lower Case or Upper Case Morality

In his article, “The moral naturalists” (explanations for lower case letters to come), David Brooks points to research that points to a sense of right and wrong that we are born with and learn very early. Even “lower” animals such as rats and monkeys learn to cooperate. It seems that we have “natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty,” and we show preferences for goodness and fairness from infancy. Social norms, evidently, “fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.” Those who behave morally seem to do it because they are “more sensitive to other people’s points of view” and better at “anticipating and reading other people’s pain.” What researchers seem to be identifying as a moral sense is one that values such virtues as cohesion, cooperation, and empathy. However, Brooks complains that researchers’ perspective on morality seems to be “lower case” and that it might not satisfy “those who want their morality to be awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.”

I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?

Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?

If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.

And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”

Loving and Doing "The Good" (January 2009)

I applaud the efforts that have recently been cited in my local news to encourage public officials (and all of the rest of us) toward more ethical behavior. It is time for us to take the gloves off, to move beyond complacency, and to realize that unless all of us act on behalf of character and ethics, we all suffer. There is no way in our society to separate ourselves from the effects of other people's unethical behavior; we have seen this in the devastation caused to our neighbors and friends and non-profit organizations by the unethical behavior of securities and investment professionals, realtors and mortgage brokers, and Bernie Madoff. We see it regularly in crime statistics and in the 15% more we pay at the cash register as a result of theft.

However, we can no longer point to "the other guy" as the offender when we have done little to create change ourselves, to behave ethically, or to teach our children to be people of character. We have had a "doing the minimum" or "doing what we can get away with" attitude, rather than a "doing the optimal" attitude, for too long. Clearly laws and ethics codes and procedures are not enough. Enron, and many other companies that have hurt employees, consumers, and the environment, have had ethics codes and procedures. They have often adopted them to comply with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines so that they can avoid huge fines should they get into trouble.

Yet, research indicates that laws and efforts at ethical compliance do not motivate ethical behavior. Unless values are infused throughout organizations from the top down, formal ethics procedures and awareness of laws do little to change individual or organizational behavior for the better. It is understood that ethical behavior requires first that we "know the good," thus the need for laws and regulations, codes and procedures. But these fall short in creating ethical behavior --we also have to "love the good" and "do the good." Preachers can preach "the good." Lawyers can define "the bad," or what we shouldn't do. Many can define and promote ethical behavior. But let's get the mental health professionals - experts in behavior change - to work on helping people to "love the good" and "do the good." Or better yet, let's all work together, using all of our skills, talents, and energy to "create the good," to aim for what's optimal, so that our children can inherit a better society to live in than we are currently experiencing.

Disney Does It Right (November 2008)

Well, after all of the reading I have done on business ethics, I have become sensitized to what an ethical business looks like from the consumer perspective. And, of course, I have had a number of conversations about the need to improve with businesses who have fallen short. I have even, as you might imagine, terminated relationships with businesses that have fallen far short. But I was pleasantly surprised this week by the performance of a business that I had, up to this point, thought was overly commercialized, overly superficial; a business that I had avoided for a number of reasons.

My family and I just spent a week at Disney World, and from my observations they outperformed many businesses in living out good character or ethics. Every employee we had contact with greeted us in a friendly, enthusiastic manner, with a smile, and questioned with interest how our vacation was going. Never did I receive an "I don't know" or experience an indifferent or unhelpful attitude in response to a question. Service was always prompt, despite the crowds of the Thanksgiving holiday. And I was amazed at the crowd management, particularly given the holiday - despite the masses that were clearly apparent, never did we have to wait more than a few minutes for transportation or food service or entry to events.

In addition to terrific customer service, everything we attended reflected values that I think ought to be promulgated. Respect for diversity was reflected in the number of disabled people enjoying and working at the parks and the accommodations provided for them. It was also evident in the wide range of diverse cultures represented in employees and performers - "cast members," as they are referred to. Further, whether it was Epcot or Animal Kingdom, consideration for the environment and for the animal world were clearly apparent. We were all encouraged to do more to sustain our planet and had many opportunities to learn how to do so. Healthy food for children and adults was also available at the restaurants we went to. I don't think the carrot sticks, raisens, and apple sauce sides that were offered to accompany children's meals are even available to my daughter at her elementary school.

And in every show we attended, cast members were upbeat and cheerful and enthusiastic and had a positive attitude about life. They encouraged children to pursue their dreams, to work hard, to persist until the best goal could be reached. They encouraged and demonstrated caring and kindness and respect for all people and the natural world. And they did it in playful, entertaining, and often humorous way. Epcot, in its Candlelight Processional and concert, even did what many companies consider too great a risk - they acknowledged the religious element of this season by telling the Christ story. Even if it isn't the only story or everyone's story, they seemed to be saying, it is a story worth telling, and an important part of many people's history and lives. I was happy to have my child at Disney World - the values illustrated there were clear, did not detract from what I am trying to teach her, and were values I would be happy to see reflected in every part of our society.

The big question is why they aren't reflected in very business, school, government, and community organization. If Disney - which is clearly a very profitable and enormous enterprise - can do it, why can't everyone else? Now, I am sure that someone can probably dig up some dirt about Disney. I understand Walt wasn't all that delightful. But if the lowest members in the chain of command at Disney - those picking up the garbage and cleaning the bathrooms for minimum wage - can reflect such positive attitudes and values, the values must now be infused throughout the organization from the top down. Can't we all start today deciding on and living out values that create a better working environment and better physical and mental health for ourselves and everyone around us? Can't we all live as though our children or mothers or the evening news were watching us? I say, "Yes, we can!"