You Can't Argue With the Little Things
No, really — it's not allowed.
A friend was watching Mel Gibson's The Patriot recently, and thought it began well. She particularly admired Gibson's character's statement, during a debate about the War of Independence, that, "I'm a parent; I can't afford principles." It reminded me of this article in The New Yorker of 27 February 2006. Several times, statements occur similar to this one:
Time and again we hear politicians proclaiming the defense of values, which are usually "traditional" (and often "family" ones). Stay-at-home homemaking and mom-ing is also high on the list. Also included would be advocacy for the "right to life" (perhaps better called the "right to birth"), "anti-immorality" ("anti-vice"), and "patriotism".
But aside from the — erm — principle of marriage being a relationship between one man and one woman, there doesn't seem to be much room in the national debates for discussing actual principles. Notice that, whenever you hear the phrase "In principle,...", it usually heralds bad news for the principle.
The theme of value is undeniably effective, all the more so because the word is used in so many contexts. Most often, of course, it's political code for "morals" or "morality" (but those words can't be used because it might drive some to vote for one's opponents). But it also draws upon its varied usages in economics, psychology, sociology and more, deploying connotations of appreciation, character, cost-benefit analysis, efficiency, personal industry, investment, merit, opportunity cost, optimization, quality, worth, and heaven-only-knows what all else. In this sense, it seems to allude particularly to – dare I say it? – the labor theory of value, as when adults talk about kids (not) knowing the value of a dollar. Value(s) is/are implied to be (some)thing(s) that cannot be inculcated but are only obtainable through experience. Of course, to frame it that way is to suggest that experience – and not just any experience, but experience that matters – will probably lead you to concurrence with the accepted value(s). If not — well, your experience was of questionable merit.
(It's curious that "value" also seems to convey a fear of communistic, or at least Marxist, dispossession — not just of excessive private-property holdings, but of the right to exercise dearly held beliefs, if not those beliefs themselves: you want us to surrender our values to your principles?! But what good are principles? Principles suggest philosophy, rationality, cold hard heartless logic. Many principles come from science (Bernoulli's Principle), which has also produced (in the sense of providing both the means-to and the recognition-of) such problems as as nuclear energy, global warming, even (if you buy the argument) autism. And evolution, of course, which is not only a threat to civil society, but to God Itself: Darwin's theory of natural selection was admired by Marx, who was strongly influenced by Nietzsche, who of course proclaimed that "God is dead.")
Principles, on the other hand, smack of indoctrination: of arbitrariness, of beliefs clung to regardless of their usefulness. (Of course, usefulness is only measurable with respect to certain ends, but then, some ends are more worthy than others, aren't they?)
If, then, "value" implies practical experience, it contains a built-in justification for the parental "abandonment" of principles in favor of values. It's all well and good to have principles, but in accepting responsibility for the protection of a child, you have to consider the gritty realities of daily life. Thus the tendency of parents to describe their ethical exchange as one of values for principles rather than of one set of principles for another.
So principles are theoretical, whereas values are applied. But principles have an element of idealism to them that values do not. I never understood what "game theory" had to do with anything until I read a review of it in a recent number of Science. I found it quite interesting. In some situations, it pays to do the fair thing. In others, it pays to do the selfish thing — at least in the short term, because when everyone does the selfish thing, everyone suffers: for example, "white flight" and "blockbusting" in real estate. It is to this propensity that Dumbledore was referring when he exhorted his pupils to remember Cedric's murder when faced with the choice of doing what is easy or what is right. One might argue that taking the easy way out is merely human nature – which, of course, it is, although not in the way that that is meant: each of us can only perceive a very limited bit of the "anthrosphere" (much as it's difficult to appreciate the depth of geological time) – or that life is like that – which of course it is, although, again, not in the way meant: it's that way because we as individuals often make it that way (the laws of physics did not compel Congress to ignore a medical-bankruptcy exemption).
Values and principles are different sides of the same coin. Values get portrayed as salt-of-the-earth, make-us-who-we-are cultural practices that are worth defending to the death (especially their opponents'). Principles, by contrast, are made out to be abstract high-falutin' ivory-tower egghead luxuries.
A friend was watching Mel Gibson's The Patriot recently, and thought it began well. She particularly admired Gibson's character's statement, during a debate about the War of Independence, that, "I'm a parent; I can't afford principles." It reminded me of this article in The New Yorker of 27 February 2006. Several times, statements occur similar to this one:
The debate here [about cruelty to war-related detainees and prisoners]
isn't only how to protect the country. It's how to protect our values.
Time and again we hear politicians proclaiming the defense of values, which are usually "traditional" (and often "family" ones). Stay-at-home homemaking and mom-ing is also high on the list. Also included would be advocacy for the "right to life" (perhaps better called the "right to birth"), "anti-immorality" ("anti-vice"), and "patriotism".
But aside from the — erm — principle of marriage being a relationship between one man and one woman, there doesn't seem to be much room in the national debates for discussing actual principles. Notice that, whenever you hear the phrase "In principle,...", it usually heralds bad news for the principle.
The theme of value is undeniably effective, all the more so because the word is used in so many contexts. Most often, of course, it's political code for "morals" or "morality" (but those words can't be used because it might drive some to vote for one's opponents). But it also draws upon its varied usages in economics, psychology, sociology and more, deploying connotations of appreciation, character, cost-benefit analysis, efficiency, personal industry, investment, merit, opportunity cost, optimization, quality, worth, and heaven-only-knows what all else. In this sense, it seems to allude particularly to – dare I say it? – the labor theory of value, as when adults talk about kids (not) knowing the value of a dollar. Value(s) is/are implied to be (some)thing(s) that cannot be inculcated but are only obtainable through experience. Of course, to frame it that way is to suggest that experience – and not just any experience, but experience that matters – will probably lead you to concurrence with the accepted value(s). If not — well, your experience was of questionable merit.
(It's curious that "value" also seems to convey a fear of communistic, or at least Marxist, dispossession — not just of excessive private-property holdings, but of the right to exercise dearly held beliefs, if not those beliefs themselves: you want us to surrender our values to your principles?! But what good are principles? Principles suggest philosophy, rationality, cold hard heartless logic. Many principles come from science (Bernoulli's Principle), which has also produced (in the sense of providing both the means-to and the recognition-of) such problems as as nuclear energy, global warming, even (if you buy the argument) autism. And evolution, of course, which is not only a threat to civil society, but to God Itself: Darwin's theory of natural selection was admired by Marx, who was strongly influenced by Nietzsche, who of course proclaimed that "God is dead.")
Principles, on the other hand, smack of indoctrination: of arbitrariness, of beliefs clung to regardless of their usefulness. (Of course, usefulness is only measurable with respect to certain ends, but then, some ends are more worthy than others, aren't they?)
If, then, "value" implies practical experience, it contains a built-in justification for the parental "abandonment" of principles in favor of values. It's all well and good to have principles, but in accepting responsibility for the protection of a child, you have to consider the gritty realities of daily life. Thus the tendency of parents to describe their ethical exchange as one of values for principles rather than of one set of principles for another.
So principles are theoretical, whereas values are applied. But principles have an element of idealism to them that values do not. I never understood what "game theory" had to do with anything until I read a review of it in a recent number of Science. I found it quite interesting. In some situations, it pays to do the fair thing. In others, it pays to do the selfish thing — at least in the short term, because when everyone does the selfish thing, everyone suffers: for example, "white flight" and "blockbusting" in real estate. It is to this propensity that Dumbledore was referring when he exhorted his pupils to remember Cedric's murder when faced with the choice of doing what is easy or what is right. One might argue that taking the easy way out is merely human nature – which, of course, it is, although not in the way that that is meant: each of us can only perceive a very limited bit of the "anthrosphere" (much as it's difficult to appreciate the depth of geological time) – or that life is like that – which of course it is, although, again, not in the way meant: it's that way because we as individuals often make it that way (the laws of physics did not compel Congress to ignore a medical-bankruptcy exemption).
Values and principles are different sides of the same coin. Values get portrayed as salt-of-the-earth, make-us-who-we-are cultural practices that are worth defending to the death (especially their opponents'). Principles, by contrast, are made out to be abstract high-falutin' ivory-tower egghead luxuries.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 12:43
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home