SECULAR VALUES - Where The Values Are

If we are not clear about what our ethics are, then we are also unclear what values* lie behind them, those you believe and instinctively uphold through your life. In these days when cynicism or apathy are our guiding stars - in what do we now put our faith?

The poet and thinker David Whyte believes there is a central dichotomy in modern society between two values, to be an independent individual and to belong. We want a sense of belonging to society, to families, to religions, to political or social groups. But find ourselves rebelling against any perceived restrictions, oppression, compromises and curtailing of individual liberty that belonging to any group may ask of us. Liberty and belonging are seen as in fundamental and oppositional loggerheads.

These days we lean towards individualism above collective loyalties, and tend to downplay the need for the latter. Once upon a time it was the reverse, that we valued the collective loyalties way above individual self expression to the point of actively suppressing the latter. Neither position seems to embody an entirely healthy or flexible attitude.

So, having turned partly away from devotedly adhering to our role as a dutiful civilian, we've turned them into a issue of personal choice. They are considered optional extras, or at least conditional ones, dependent upon whether they fulfill personal advantage or match our desires. The nobler task of committing oneself to higher ideals and values, ones that take us beyond solely feeding our personal benefit and gratification, are often being slandered as fruitless self denial. Individual liberty has been reinterpreted as the be all and end all of life in the pursuit of happiness.

If our society does require remedial work to restore the central strength of its ' common values and ethics' , what are they now? What is there left of our 'common values and ethics'? Can they be rebuilt or reformed?  Would we uphold them? Do we even recognise ourselves as having collective values? For values to be followed, we have to identify with them, aspire too them, on a personal, even instinctual, level. Once owned, values are not passive possessions, they need to be worn.

In the pursuit of values there is a fundamental question - What is good? And once having identified what is good, its followed by - how do I encourage what is good in myself and in others,? Religious teachers through out history, whatever their denomination, have essentially been asking that questions of us - What is good, and how do we encourage that in individuals and society at large? 

That there is a degree of ethical congruity across faiths indicates these values are broadly held in common across most human cultures, whether East or West. They are not just the sole preserve of one particular religion to define, uphold and impose. They are reflecting human values and basic needs for - liberty, loyalty, respect, tolerance, kindness, appreciation, the sanctity of life, etc.

There will always be people who will refuse to adhere to values for the common good, just because you can in a free society. Its what the law is for, to provide an ethical backstop for when people over step the mark. In general, I'd like to believe most people want to do good. Though we may often be mislead in the moment, by the strength our emotions, by the misjudgments we make and by pressures from aspects of society to act in a particular way, which may or may not be to the good. 

Values stimulate an ethical impulse in us to act, or not to act on them, to pursue them or abjure. But we do need to recognise we have them, that they're ingrained into the geology of our behaviour. The psychologist and philosopher Ian McGilchrist believes they emanate as a quality from the universe. All phenomena has intrinsic value, its not conferred upon phenomena by us.

Though the phrasing and emphasis might differ, religious ethics provide a context within which common themes of - what it is to do good - can be adopted. There can, however, be subtle differences in their purpose over - what is the doing good for? Lets look at a few examples around violence and killing. Its the primary precept in Buddhist ethics. This has both a negative and a positive version, what to discourage and what to encourage. It says:-

I undertake to abstain from taking life
With deeds of loving kindness, I purify my body.

In the Ten Commandments it says - Thou shall not kill, which is blunt and to the point. It doesn't sound very nuanced, but in actual practice it would have to be. Because the context within which something takes place is important; killing in war; killing under extreme duress; killing by accident; killing as a lesser but necessary form of good. Causes and volitions nuance the level of approbation, for where allowances would be made.

Buddhism asks you to consider ethics in relation to your thoughts, words and deeds. So its not just about bodily killing, its about the violence we do within our minds to ourselves and others, and what we say about ourselves and others. To work on transforming these into a loving and kinder response. Violence and anger do mutual damage to victim and perpetrator. So for Buddhism the purpose in our doing good, extends beyond a divine prohibition to not do anything bad. It is to purify and change ourselves so thoroughly that in a small incremental way we alter, not just our experience of reality, but reality itself. 

In Christianity it values not killing in order to prevent the suffering and hurt of another. Buddhism values 'abstaining from taking life' in order to prevent the suffering and hurt of both victim and perpetrator'. For in both, the not doing of something throws up huge challenges on an emotional and mental level. Not killing someone, no matter how murderous you are feeling, requires you to stop where you are, to adjust your perception, mind or feelings, and step away from wielding that axe. 

Hatred is a perception filter, a habit of an angry mind and stirred up emotion. So you have to tackle hatred on many levels. The Buddhist precepts provide a tool to cultivate 'loving kindness' towards yourself and the state you are in, and towards the person to whom you have ill feeling. It is not.necessarily, an easy or quick thing to turn around. So patience needs cultivating.

In both religions human life has intrinsic value, it is either God given and sacred, or a precious opportunity arising from fortunate circumstances that created your life, so it is wrong to rob anyone of it. All human and sentient life is inter-connected. Our inter-connectedness is a belief that has foundational importance in Buddhism. Though Christianity may not make interconnectedness that explicit, it is a quality arising from everything being of God's creation. We are doing good, but behind it lies a larger sacred purpose.

What is valued tends to be founded upon such underlying beliefs. Not taking life is a value, but we do so, because - we are all interconnected spiritually - are all Gods creations - all human life is sacred. These are foundational beliefs. For example - all life being interconnected underpins why not causing harm to others is deemed so vital. This is also a responsibility we hold not just individually, but collectively.

But there have been times when cultures don't value that interconnection. In many early ancient cultures where humankind was more stratified, prejudicial distinctions were made between the capabilities of men and women. Likewise different classes, slaves or races. It was considered of lesser consequence to kill a slave, because they"d already been bought and sold, and by virtue of being commodified were robbed of their humanity anyway. 

A similar thing happened to Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and people with mental problems. under the Nazis regime. Where it became OK to kill someone because they were considered dehumanised, subhuman, inferior or defective. This view is dependent upon holding a belief in your own superiority or that of your country, cast, race or gender. Then your values will emphasise your separateness and your inherent, even God given, sense of being superior. This meant even killing might be considered important for the greater good of mankind. Its not something I'd sign up for. But it demonstrates how the sort of values you hold can produce a different sense of what is right ethically, of what is to be considered good.  

The consequences of the first precept or commandment 'to not take life' roll out from them like a constantly evolving ethical river. Causing us to examine other forms of violence, through what we do, through what we say, through what we think, even through to what we eat. Murder is one hate filled action, it can take many forms, particularly in how we speak to ourselves and to others. If we hate ourselves then this tends to seep out in how we respond to the people we encounter in daily life. 

Values state an ideal, out of which emerges an ethical principle, but that ethical principle has to be acted upon if it is to have any value at all. Nothing theoretical has meaning or validity until its put to the test. We all hold a fundamental belief that these values, if they are put into action, would make the world a better place to live in, not just for yourself, but everyone.

That beliefs, values and ethics have previously been the sole preserve of religions, could make all this triumvirate of elements problematic. Because we want to see ourselves as moving beyond organised 'superstitious' religions. A secular form of ethics, however, cannot evolve out of nothing. Dissociating them from where they emerged first, doesn't necessarily help. 

Christianity's purpose has often been to act as societies conscience, the focus for social reform and ethical progress. We have to acknowledge, however begrudgingly, that we inherited a legacy from Christian ideals and ethics. Even though practicing Christians have not always been the best exemplars of them, for better or for worse.

If not our religious or political leaders, who else today will uphold our inheritance of these 'common values and ethics'? Who today has the authority to provide moral leadership?  Maybe it should not be down to one person or institution, not a top down dissemination, but an up-swelling from a grass roots desire for renewal.

* Values - underlying ideals, qualities and feelings we have given emotional investment to. Often referred to as core values, these feed into our ethics and the sort of society we aspire to have. Not, however to be confused with monetary values.

To follow

SECULAR BELIEFS - Its Certainty Or Bust