Reproduction of this essay in whole or in part for noncommercial purposes, with attribution and with notice of copyright, is permitted; reproduction of this essay in whole or in part for commercial purposes, or without attribution, or without notice of copyright, without the author's express permission, is not permitted.

My Values

One's values are one's prioritizations of what matters to him--of what is important to him. It doesn't matter whether one is religious or not; it doesn't matter whether one believes in God or not. One still values what matters to him. And how one lives his life and what ethics he adopts ultimately depend upon his values.

In my own case, I value consciousness: Without my own consciousness, without my own awareness, nothing could matter to me. I couldn't care about anything. So, my own consciousness is necessary to my valuing anything at all. But not only is my own consciousness a prerequisite for my caring at all or for my valuing anything at all; I also care about my continued experiencing. Being an experiencing entity matters to me. I value my own mental life.

I make the assumption that other people have mental lives, too, and that their mental lives matter to them, just as mine matters to me. And, by a kind of sympathy or compassion, I attach importance to their mental lives, too--even the mental lives of people whom I do not know. All human consciousness matters to me.

It therefore matters to me how I treat other people, and it therefore matters to me how other people treat other people, too. I think that other people should be treated civilly and kindly and gently and patiently and well; that other people should be treated with the recognition that they are other people--that they are other entities with mental lives that matter. Just as I value the satisfaction of my own needs and desires--just as I value my own happiness (and avoidance of suffering)--I also recognize the importance of the satisfaction of other people's needs and desires to them--I also recognize the importance of their own happiness (and avoidance of suffering) to them.

I think that most other people place value on the continuation of their own consciousnesses, too; and I hope that most other people mutually recognize the importance of the continuation of other people's own consciousnesses to themselves, and of the satisfaction of other people's needs and desires to themselves--of other people's happiness (and avoidance of suffering) to themselves. And I hope that most other people, through some sympathy or compassion like mine, mutually recognize the importance of each other's conscious lives and of each other's welfare.

I also value personal freedom very highly. (That is to say, I value my own freedom, and take other people's freedom to be important, too.) There are, naturally, constraints--social harmony matters, too--but whenever there is no good reason to limit a person's freedom, his freedom should not be limited. Generally speaking, human beings should be free to pursue their own ends--to pursue the satisfaction of their own needs and desires--as far as is consonant with their not harming others or their unduly interfering with other people's pursuits of their own ends. An actuary working in a cubicle all day should be allowed to dress as he pleases; we should be allowed to wear our hair however we want to, if there is no good reason not to. On the other hand, the volume of one's stereo ought not to be such as to disturb one's neighbors--although reasonable people ought to be able to reach reasonable agreements, so that, for example, there might be certain times when turning up the stereo would be deemed acceptable. But personal freedom should not be constrained for no good reason; to do so, on my view, is unethical. Since people generally do in fact pursue their own ends, I take this value to be widespread.

But I also have certain idiosyncratic values--values that are my own, but that other people might not share. (Even my high valuing of human freedom might not be universally shared; perhaps some people place a much higher value on social harmony, relative to freedom, than I do; they might place human beings under more restrictive individual behavioral strictures than I do.)

In particular, I place a very, very high value on truth. I value both honesty--the telling of individual truths--and believing what is true rather than what is not true. Since I have made the metaphysical commitment to an objectively existing external reality and since I have made the epistemic commitment to being able to gain reasonably reliable information about that reality via my senses; and since I have further committed myself to other people's having mental lives and to their being able to gain reasonably reliable information about physical reality via their senses; and since I have further committed myself to our being able to communicate via observation of each other and via speech; I can accept truths resulting from my own observation of the world or from other people's observation of the world--empirical truths--or from analysis that I accept--analytic or logical or mathematical truths, but I cannot accept as true the claim that an imperceptible leprechaun named "Percival" really exists. I cannot accept existence claims that are unsupported by empirical evidence or by convincing argumentation as true. So, in particular, I cannot accept religious beliefs that are unsupported by empirical observation or by convincing argumentation. I cannot see them as true.

I also value warmth and kindness and patience and being loving; these have nothing to do with any metaphysical or epistemic commitments, unless it were argued that, having made the commitments leading to empiricism, one then observed that human beings generally thrive on being treated warmly and kindly and patiently and lovingly and that human beings do not thrive on being treated coldly or unkindly or impatiently or unlovingly. I do not normally quote either Jesus or the Bible approvingly, but if "Love thy neighbor" can be taken as the suggestion to treat each other warmly and kindly and patiently and lovingly, then I agree with it. It doesn't mean that we have to go around making love with everyone we see, although I suppose we may, if they so wish; but smiling and listening and being understanding and giving people the benefit of every doubt--yes, I think it means that.

As it happens, I value being loving toward each other sufficiently seriously to consider the theoretical possibility of polyamory--of having more than one beloved--more than one "significant other" (oh, what an awkward term!) at a time. (It certainly seems more loving than serial monogamy. See here.) No matter what kind of relationship one is in, however-- and I've never been in anything other than a traditional, one-on-one relationship, and I've always focussed all of my attention on my beloved when in a relationship--and whether one is in a romantic relationship or not--the main thing is that we be good to each other; that we be kind to each other; that we be loving toward each other. It might not be enough to ensure relationship success--for that, we also need to have some understanding of expectations and of relationship management, and must value relationships themselves (although it might reasonably be said that we merely need to understand that other people do what makes sense to them, even when they seem not to, and both be of goodwill and accept other people as being of goodwill, too)--but surely being good and kind and patient and loving toward each each other makes a good start.

For the same reason, I also take seriously the idea of socialism. I think that human psychology demands something more than pure socialism can offer, but at the same time, I think that we should be concerned with each other's welfare--I would answer the question, "Am I my brother's keeper," with something other than the simple "No" it seems usually to be taken to have; I would answer it with a qualified "Yes"--and, being concerned with each other's welfare, should set up a system that ensures that everyone's needs (although not necessarily desires) are met. In particular, since I think that everyone ought to have access to at least minimally decent health care, and since I don't see how to ensure that that is brought about without governmental intervention, I favor socialized medicine. It is not a matter of a liberal commie atheist's wanting to tax hugely and spend hugely; it is a matter of placing value on everyone's consciousness and on everyone's welfare and of seeing that the welfare of all requires that we actually be our brothers' keepers, to a certain extent. (See here.)

It is for a similar reason that I am a "peacenik" who deplores the necessity for the use of force around the world and who abhors any unnecessarily strong use of force, including any unnecessary war or any unnecessary killing by police. When force is used, people die; lives end; consciousnesses end. And, having no belief in an afterlife-- seeing no belief in an afterlife as justified, and therefore seeing this life as very likely being all there is--I think that consciousness almost certainly ends at death; but consciousness is the most valuable thing there is, the most precious of all features of the world, and it is a tragedy whenever consciousness is brought to an unnecessarily premature end. Moreover, our consciousnesses interact; we have friends and families; and each individual is particularly precious to a few other individuals, not merely as a conscious entity but as the particular person he is. And when an individual dies, not only does his own consciousness die, but other consciousnesses are adversely affected--his friends and family mourn his passing. But even the unnecessarily premature death of a complete loner, of someone who has no friends or family, is a tragedy, for it is the unnecessarily premature cessation of a consciousness. (It will be wonderful if death is ever entirely defeated; alas, I don't see that happening in my lifetime.)

For some reason, good values seem sometimes to be associated with religious believers--and, conversely, not-so-good values seem sometimes to be associated with religious nonbelievers. I think that's strange, both because I would find it strange to think that religious nonbelievers automatically held bad values and because I would find it strange to think that religious believers who valued most highly a deity who would turn a woman into a pillar of salt or who would flood the Earth or who would prescribe death for the cursing of parents--or who would consign anyone to eternal suffering in the afterlife--really have the best values. I would find it strange to think that nonbelievers wouldn't want their children to grow up telling the truth, respecting nonharmful differences, treating other people civilly, valuing creativity, and so on, since, after all, I know better. And I would find it strange to think that those who valued being fruitful and multiplying over sensible population limitation, and who would unrestrainedly exploit the world's resources rather than preserving them--because, after all, the end was near--and who wouldn't mind imposing capital punishment, ending consciousnesses, because the victim's ultimate fate was in their mythical God's hands (so that they could both comfort themselves by thinking that the victim's life wasn't really ending--that only his corporeal life was coming to an end--and absolve themselves of the ultimate responsibility for imposing absolutely final death upon the victim)--really had the best values. So, for both positive and negative reasons, I would find it strange to associate good values strictly with religious believers; I would find it strange to associate life-affirming values only with religious believers; I would find it strange to think that religious nonbelievers somehow automatically held bad values.

I have two nephews. I want my nephews to grow up learning to value truth. I want my nephews to grow up learning to value other people's well-being. I want my nephews to grow up learning to be honest and respectful of other human beings as human beings and to be loyal and civil and kind and loving toward others; I want them to grow up learning to value truth and friendship and the welfare and happiness of other human beings. I want them to grow up to be good and ethical human beings. I want them to grow up learning to value peace and freedom and personal integrity, and I want them to grow up learning to value knowledge and wisdom. I want them to grow up learning to value creativity. I want them to grow up learning to value excellence. I want them to grow up learning to value the making of their best effort. I want them to grow up learning to value the peaceful acceptance of the fact that different people are different and to value peaceful coexistence over armed conflict.

I don't think those are terribly unusual desires. If you would want much the same for your nephews--or for your children, or for society's children--then we really ought to be on the same side.

(© 2007 by Keith Brian Johnson)

Personal Home
Site Home