When Worlds Collide

With palms together,
Good Morning All,

A somewhat tumultuous conversation after services last night lead me to think a lot about consistency of values and actions. If one holds themselves out to be a person of faith and that faith calls for or points to certain values, then we should attempt to behave according to those values. So goes the story line. On the other hand, we each must come to our own values through our own spiritual work. It appears that spiritual work or reflection is no guarantee that common values will emerge. And then what? We cannot discount the values we oppose. We cannot dictate values. Yet, at the same time a group's cohesiveness often depends on shared values.

So what are we to do?

One thought I had is that people might begin speaking of only what their values are, rather than what others should not value. This will at least give us a set of values cast as positives. From this list of values, we could select those we believe are either worthy of our attention or less worthy of our attention, and then work on objectives and goals.

Of course, the problem with such a plan is that it ignores the crux of the issue: ethical dilemmas. An ethical dilemma occurs when two values of equal merit conflict with one another. Such an example might include a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body verses the value of life. Or the value of freedom on the one hand and the value of peace on the other.

Traditionally value conflicts or ethical dilemmas are dealt with by two types of resolution, a deontological perspective and a consequentialist perspective. A deontological approach is rules based, such as those within Judaism: a set of commandments decides.A consequentialist approach looks at what happens if each of the two paths to a conflict are taken, attempts to weigh the consequences for all concerned, and selects the path that leads to the greater good over bad for most of the people involved.

Yikes. Another problem! What happens to those people who hold a value, such as non-violence and others are able to establish the moral supremacy of their value, armed intervention?

We might say that some values are universal, peace, for example. But is peace always a universal value? This is the heart of true spiritual practice, in my opinion.

It is to those who engage in this true spiritual practice that I bow.

Be well.