How Values Develop: Our Human Values, #1

By Bob O'Connor

WHY THIS SERIES?

The original idea was to make people aware of the underlying assumptions and varying reasons that we use to make the value decisions that we do. We usually think that we have very good reasons for what we believe and do. People's thinking and actions will always begin with a non-provable basic assumption, as primary: one's self, one's God, or one's idea of a better society. Next, it will depend on the evidence that we use to validate our assumptions. However, often the reasons we give are rationalizations for non-thinking reactions that we have made.

I began with writing what is now Volume 3--examining a number of individual and  social problems from the points of view of the three basic assumptions, then applying evidence to each that could make each have value (be moral) or not have value (be immoral). Then I realized that I needed to provide much more information on how our basic assumptions develop. Philosophers usually assume, or at least hope, that we think our way into our beliefs. However, my background in psychology, and my studies of genetics and epigenetics, have enlarged my philosophic comprehension and interest. Consequently, it became obvious that two more volumes would be needed to clarify the structure of Volume 3.

Volume I (Our Human Values-- How They Develop) examines each basic assumption along with its possible origins from self-centered (genetic, epigenetic, intra-uterine, infancy through maturity--including both conscious and unconscious factors), through God-based assumptions (philosophy of religion and comparative theologies), to society-based assumptions (obstacles to utopia, liberty versus equality, and various concerns with modern democracies).

Volume II (Our Human Values--Values, Identities and Society) surveys the various sources of evidence one might use in validating one's ideas. It briefly touches logic, logical fallacies, and spends some time on identities and how often, especially today, people use faulty evidence to construct their identities or how their identities seek out, and only believe, evidence that validates what they hope is true.

Volume III briefly analyzes a number of individual and social problems such as: abortion, capital punishment, Black Lives Matter, eugenics, and human rights--and shows how each can have value, or not have value, when using each of the basic assumptions, depending on which evidence is selected to validate the assumption.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Total Health Publications
• Release date: Jun 15, 2021
• ISBN: 9798201955946

Bob O'Connor

Bob O'Connor is a retired professor who has health education, philosophy, and several other subjects. Who is teaching experiences have been in the United States, Canada, and Norway. He is also a licensed family therapist in California. He has traveled extensively throughout the world since 1960. Born in south-central Los Angeles during the depression, he attended UCLA and USC, and received his doctorate in the philosophy of education in 1960. His doctoral dissertation focused on ethics, justice, and democracy.

Book preview

OUR HUMAN VALUES

VOLUME I

HOW VALUES DEVELOP

Dr. Bob O’Connor

WHY THIS SERIES?

PREFACE

CHAPTER 1—WHERE ARE WE GOING?

VALUES—OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE?

OUR VALUES REST ON ASSUMPTIONS

OUR IDENTITIES INDICATE OUR VALUES

OUR BEHAVIOR IS BASED LARGELY ON OUR VALUES

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS—THE START OF OUR THINKING

UNCONSCIOUS INFLUENCES ON OUR THINKING

APPLYING EVIDENCE TO THE MIX

RATING THE PRESS IN TERMS OF THEIR BIAS

SECTION I—AN INTRODUCTION TO HOW AND WHY WE CHOOSE OUR VALUES

WHERE DO ETHICS FIT IN OUR VIEWING OUR VALUES?

CHAPTER  2—LOOKING FOR HAPPINESS —A REASON FOR THE  VALUES WE CHOOSE

SOME CONFLICTS IN WHAT IS VALUED

WE MUST THINK MORE DEEPLY—AND UNDERSTAND OUR THINKING

LET’S UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT, BUT IMPROVE THE FUTURE!

CHAPTER 3—OUR BASIC ASSUMPTIONS—THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR VALUES

ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE

SELF CENTERED VALUES

SECTION II—SELF-CENTERED CHOICES

CHAPTER  4—SELF-CENTERED ASSUMPTIONS

CHOOSING FOR NOW OR TOMORROW

FREEDOM

SECTION III—PHYSIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON WHAT APPEAR TO BE SELF-CENTERED VALUES

CHAPTER  5—THE EFFECTS OF GENETICS AND EPIGENETICS ON THINKING AND VALUE CHOOSING

UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PATHS TAKEN TO COPE

CHAPTER  6—PHYSICAL MECHANISMS DIRECTING OUR MINDS

BIOLOGICAL FACTORS

A QUICK BIT OF BRAIN ANATOMY

NEUROTRANSMITTERS

HORMONES

CHAPTER  7  THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR GENES ON OUR THINKING

A GENE-MIND CONNECTION?

CHAPTER  8  EPIGENETICS AND THINKING

HORMONE METHYLATION

STRESS HORMONES CAN CAUSE EPIGENETIC CHANGES

POSSIBLE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF SOME EPIGENETIC CHANGES

EPIGENETIC MECHANISMS

EPIGENETICS AND DEPRESSION

EPIGENETIC TRANSFERS FROM ANCESTORS

CHAPTER  9  EARLY LIFE STRESSES AFFECT OUR VALUE CHOOSING

SECTION  IV  A LAST LOOK AT SELF-CENTERED VALUES

CHAPTER  10—  EFFECTS ON THE FETUS FROM THE INTRAUTERINE ENVIRONMENT

STRESSES

FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME

ILLEGAL DRUGS

CHAPTER  11—PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS AND DRIVES AS AIDS OR IMPEDIMENTS TO CLEAR THINKING

A BRIEF LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MOTIVATION

MASLOW'S THEORY OF A HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

NEED TO SATISFY PHYSICAL NEEDS

DO VALUES DEVELOP OUR MOTIVATIONS –OR ARE THEY DERIVED FROM THEM

CHAPTER  12  OUR MAJOR MOTIVATION—POWER—AND ITS EFFECT ON OUR VALUE CHOOSING FREEDOM

THE DRIVE FOR POWER

IDENTITY

CHAPTER  13—LOVE AND LOVING—ACHIEVING OUR TRULY HUMAN POTENTIALS

BEING LOVED UNSELFISHLY AND ITS EFFECT ON OUR VALUE CHOOSING

WHAT IS LOVE?

THE KINDS OF LOVE

THE NEED FOR LOVE

HOW LOVE DEVELOPS

THE INGREDIENTS OF LOVE

CHAPTER 14  CHOOSING OUR VALUES

UNDERSTANDING THE BEHAVIOR OF OURSELVES AND OTHERS

PSYCHOLOGICAL SOURCES OF BEHAVIOR

SOCIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ON OUR VALUES AND BEHAVIOR

VALUES AND BEHAVIOR

SELF-CENTERED VALUES

SELF-CENTERED VALUES FOR PRESENT OUTCOMES OR FUTURE OUTCOMES?

GOD-BASED VALUES

SOCIETY-BASED VALUES

CONFLICTS IN VALUES

LOGICAL EVIDENCE BASED GROUNDS FOR VALUE CHOICES

ABORTION

A FETUS IS NOT YET A PERSON—ONLY THE PROPERTY OF THE HUSBAND

SHOULD CHRISTIAN ADVOCATES SPEND MORE TIME ADVOCATING WHAT THE BIBLE HAS ACTUALLY APPROVED?

CHAPTER  15  CHOOSING APPROPRIATE VALUES IN ADJUSTING TO PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS AND STRESSES

HANDLING OUR MENTAL PRESSURES

GOOD STRESS AND BAD STRESS

OUR HANDLING OF STRESSOR

CHAPTER  16  OUR MINDS MAKE ADJUSTMENTS THAT AFFECT OUR ABILITIES TO THINK CLEARLY

THE NORMAL AND THE NOT SO NORMAL ADAPTATIONS TO STRESSES

THE CAUSES OF ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR

ADJUSTING TO STRESS

NORMALITY

DEFENSE MECHANISMS

THE FIGHT SYNDROME

THE ATTACK MECHANISMS

THE FLIGHT SYNDROME

MASLOW'S THEORY OF COPING MECHANISMS

CHAPTER  17  MAKING SELF-CENTERED DECISIONS

A MAJOR LIFE VALUE CONCERNS BEING LOVED—AND BECOMING A LOVER

SECTION 5—GOD BASED ASSUMPTIONS

CHAPTER 18—ASSUMING A SUPREME BEING

CHAPTER  19 THEISM

PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

A FIRST MOVER OR AN UNCAUSED CAUSE

IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN NATION?

CHAPTER  20  DEISM

CHAPTER  21  PANTHEISM AND PANENTHEISM

CHAPTER  22  AGNOSTICISM

CHAPTER  23  ATHEISM

WHO BECOMES AN ATHEIST?

CHAPTER  24—SATANISM

SECTION  VI—AN IDEA OF A BETTER SOCIETY AS A BASIC ASSUMPTION

ABSORBING RELIGIOUS VALUES

DEMOCRACY

Happiest Country in the World 2020 List

CHAPTER 25  YOUR SOCIETAL ASSUMPTIONS

ETHICAL IDEAS AND OUR VIEW OF SOCIETAL VALUES

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF AN IDEAL MODERN SOCIETY

EQUALITY

LIBERTY

LIBERTY VERSUS EQUALITY

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Prejudices that may limit equality of opportunity

PREJUDICE CAN BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL

CONFLICTS OF SOCIETAL VALUES

SELFISH CAPITALISM OR LOVING SOCIALISM—DO WE REALLY UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS?

WELFARE STATE POSSIBILITIES

CHAPTER  26—CONSIDERING THE TYPES OF POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS YOU MIGHT CHOOSE TO VALUE

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

TYPE OF GOVERNMENT

SHOULD WE ELECT ONLY COMPETENT AND CONCERNED LEGISLATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS

WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNTRY?

CHAPTER 27  CONSIDERING THE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS IN YOUR VALUE CHOICES

FUNCTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM

DO I WANT A MORE CARING SOCIETY OR A SELFISH DOG EAT DOG SOCIETY?

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY—WISHES VERSUS THE REAL WORLD

ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS OFTEN AFFECT THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER  28  CHOOSING A WELFARE STATE AS A SOCIETAL ASSUMPTION OR GOAL:

WHY ARE SOCIAL WELFARE NATIONS AND CITIES HAPPIER?

CHAPTER  29  PAYING THE BILLS FOR THE PEOPLE’S WISHES—ITS IMPORTANCE IN SOCIETAL VALUES

How is it all paid for?

1. IMMEDIATE TAXES

2.  DELAYED TAXES

DEVALUING THE CURRENCY AND  tightening the budget

2. PARTIAL OR TOTAL GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESSES OR INDUSTRIES

SOCIALIST WELFARE STATE FINANCING—GOVERNMENT OWNING SOME OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION—FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE

PUBLICLY HELD BUSINESSES

PRIVATIZATION OF STATE-OWNED INDUSTRIES

MARGARET THATCHER IN THE UK—PRIVATIZATION

UNITED STATES

HAS ANYBODY THOUGHT ABOUT RUNNING A COUNTRY EFFICIENTLY—OR IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION THE NEXT ELECTION?

SOME COMPARISONS OF GOVERNMENTS

WHAT ARE COUNTRIES GETTING FROM THEIR TAXES

CHAPTER  30  CHOOSING A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS

PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS FOR POWER AND IDENTITY—AND ADVOCATING FOR POLITICAL CAUSES

CHAPTER  31—CONSIDERING THE VALUES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

LYING DURING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IS ACCEPTABLE

THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FREE SPEECH?

CHAPTER  32—CONSIDERING THE VALUES OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION

TAX BREAKS FOR RELIGIONS

WHAT ABOUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS?

AND TODAY—ARE THERE ANY INCONSISTENCIES IN OUR THINKING?

CHAPTER  33—  WHERE DO I STAND ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

WHICH PATH?—TO YOUR IDEA OF JUSTICE—OR OF HAPPINESS?

THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

THE TRADITIONAL POLITICAL SPECTRUM

LEGAL REACTIONARY PROGRAMS

SO—A LOOK AT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SPECTRUM

A WIDER SPECTRUM

VIOLENT REACTIONARY ACTIONS—THE FAR-FAR-FAR RIGHT

THE REACTIONARY PROPAGANDISTS—THE FAR-FAR RIGHT.

THE REACTIONARIES—THE FAR RIGHT

CONSERVATIVES—THE RIGHT

MODERATES –THE MIDDLE

LIBERALS—THE LEFT

RADICALS—THE FAR LEFT

THE RADICAL PROPAGANDISTS—THE FAR-FAR LEFT

VIOLENT RADICAL ACTIONS—THE FAR-FAR-FAR LEFT

COMPARING SOME COUNTRIES

AND SO

CHAPTER 34—HOW FAR WILL YOUR SOCIETAL ASSUMPTIONS TAKE YOU?

IF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WERE CALLED, WHAT ISSUES MIGHT BE DISCUSSED?

SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A PARTING THOUGHT!

––––––––

WHY THIS SERIES?

The original idea was to make people aware of the underlying assumptions and varying reasons that we use to make the value decisions that we do. We usually think that we have very good reasons for what we believe—and do. People's thinking and actions will always begin with a non-provable basic assumption, as primary: one's self, one's God, or one's idea of a better society. Next, it will depend on the type of evidence that we use to validate our assumptions. However, often the reasons we give are rationalizations for non-thinking reactions that we have made. Thinking people will understand the assumptions they are using and verifiability of the kinds of evidence they have used to build their beliefs.

They will also realize that there is commonly great intellectual anguish when facts fracture folklore.  The courage to conquer one's cultural and comfortable customs elevates the thinker towards the lofty dialectic synthesis that Socrates sought and Hegel hailed.

Every day we encounter both novel and ancient value or ethical questions:

›  My idea of what I think God wants are more important than your desire to not have a child or the planet's need of a reduced population.

›  Amnesty International's and the World Health Organization's pleas for more inexpensive covid vaccines conflict with the profit motive of the pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies, in their attempts to develop cures, often lose money. Should all pharmaceutical companies be socialized, to eliminate the profit motive.

›  Deaths of people worldwide has been the rallying concern of those wanting more vaccines—and much cheaper. But according to population experts, the planet has seven times more people that it can support at a Western standard of living. This overpopulation, especially in the developed and developing countries, is the major reason for climate change. Fewer people will use less fossil fuels.

›  Illegal immigration is increasing because of war, terrorism, climate change, and the self-centered desires of the immigrants for a better life. This creates a financial problem for societies and generates self-centered desires of many on the political right to stop immigration.

The value questions and ethical conundrums multiply daily. Have we bothered to understand them thoroughly—or do we care?

IN DIGGING TO THE DEPTHS OF OUR THINKING—IT WILL PROBABLY BE UNCOMFORTABLE. TRADITION IS A COMFORTABLE MATTRESS FOR OUR MYTHOLOGIES—AND OUR FEELINGS GENERALLY TRIUMPH OVER REASONED CONCLUSIONS.

›  Should we work to prevent the problem—or try to solve it when it happens?

›  Should our hearts or brains be primary?

›  How far should altruism take us in preventing or solving societies' problems?

›  How much effort should we put in to helping others out of the deep hole they have dug?

I began with writing what is now Volume 3—examining a number of individual and  social problems from the points of view of the three basic assumptions, then applying evidence to each that could make each have value (be moral) or not have value (be immoral). Then I realized that I needed to provide much more information on how our basic assumptions develop. Philosophers usually assume, or at least hope, that we think our way into our beliefs. However, my background in psychology, and my studies of genetics and epigenetics, have enlarged my philosophic comprehension and interest. Consequently, it became obvious that two more volumes would be needed to clarify the structure of Volume 3.

Volume I (How Values Develop) examines each basic assumption along with its possible origins from self-centered (genetic, epigenetic, intra-uterine, psychological experiences from infancy through maturity—including both conscious and unconscious factors), through God-based assumptions (philosophy of religion and comparative theologies), to society-based assumptions (obstacles to utopia, liberty versus equality, and various concerns with modern democracies).

Volume II (Values, Identities and Society) surveys the various sources of evidence one might use in validating one's ideas. It briefly touches logic, logical fallacies, and spends some time on identities and how often, especially today, people use faulty evidence to construct their identities or how their identities seek out, and only believe, evidence that validates what they hope is true. The hardened shells of non-rationally accepted ideas—whether political, religious, racial, or ethnic—can be difficult or impossible to break with logical, verifiable facts. Unfortunately, this is a reality with which our evolving species must contend.  The positive is that the hill from mythology to reasoned thought is nowhere near as long as that from trilobite to tyrannosaurus. The negatives are that the developing human-scientific mind has conjured more methods of planetary genocide than our psychological power-driven immature minds can handle. As long as our societies produce too many babies and they do not produce enough loving parents, our problems will get worse—unless we start thinking wisely and acting on the evidence.

Volume III briefly analyzes a number of individual and social problems such as: abortion, capital punishment, Black Lives Matter, eugenics, and human rights—and shows how each can have value, or not have value, when using each of the basic assumptions, depending on which evidence is selected to validate the assumption.

We humans like simple solutions, but our minds are complicated—complicated by the structure and working of our brains, our various levels of education, the interplay of our drives for power and our ability to love altruistically. No two humans have equal minds. You can imagine the vast capacities when comparing a professor of philosophy at Harvard, who has travelled broadly, lived in several countries throughout the world, and is an atheist with a Taliban fighter who is illiterate, has developed his identity from his local leader, and who has never left Kandahar.  Their ideas on overpopulation, climate change, life in a hereafter, homosexuality and abortion are undoubtedly universes apart.

In this series, our objective is to help us to understand how and why others think the way they do, why we think the way we do, and to sharpen our thinking

—Will the anti-abortion advocate, who bases her advocacy on what she thinks the Bible says, change her mind after reading Numbers 5, in which God requires abortions?

—Will the anti-vaxxer or anti-masker change his mind when understanding the scientific evidence, or after losing a loved one to Corona?

—Will the populist politician, who denies climate change, change is position when heat waves, forest fires, floods, or drought severely upset their electorate?

—Will the American who believes that the USA is the world's best country, change opinions after reading the international rankings of the United Nations, Transparency International, the Economist's Intelligence Unit, and others?

––––––––

PREFACE

›  Philosophers of ethics desire that we think through our values from metaphysical bases.

›  Psychologists look for conscious and unconscious motivations—and the influences of our social systems on us.

›  Neurobiologists look at epigenetics to find clues as to why we act as we do.

›  Empirically informed ethics is a more modern approach to evaluation what we value.

Each is essential to understanding WHY we do, WHAT we do. But if we are to understand and think clearly about most of these issues, we must be multi-disciplinary in our search for evidence that is used to verify and amplify the behavior that the philosophers, psychologists and neurobiologists tell us is basic to our thinking—and to our behavior. Economics, political science, sociology, religion—and even physiology must be considered.

Our values may, or may not, be related to morals or ethics—right or wrong, good or bad. For example, choosing to wear a white or red sweater today was a personal value decision, it had no moral overtones. But if you were attending a Communist festival today, and their identifying color is red, your choice of wearing a red sweater could be a moral decision based on identifying with a Communist cause—even revolution!

What we do is not always thought-out—what some philosophers would call non-cognitive. It may be strongly influenced by our genetics or the epigenetic changes to our genes. It is undoubtedly influenced by our life experiences that are indelibly imprinted on our conscious and unconscious minds. Our reactions to the events of our lives, our thinking, our identities, our life stresses—each, or all, influence our behaviors. From our behavior, we can determine what our values really are.

Our behavior may, or may not, seem rational to others, but we will always give a reason, a rationalization, for what we have done. So our behavior nearly always seems to have had a value dimension to us—but it doesn’t always. Our actual reasons for our behavior may be unknown to us. Sometimes a value it is well-thought-out, sometimes it is merely a reaction, and sometimes it is abnormal. When it is abnormal, it can be diagnosed as a minor deviance from the norm, to a real dysfunction, or even a psychosis.

In the recent bible of psychologists and psychiatrists, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), Internet Gaming Disorder is listed. Most people would assume that gaming is a harmless value behavior, but scientific research has indicated that certain pathways in their brains are triggered in the same direct and intense way that a drug addict’s brain is affected by addicting drugs. So some activities, as some psychoactive substances (ie, alcohol and certain drugs), can preempt our intelligent choices of values.

Since the values we consider may range from: what and how much to eat, to our actions to reduce climate change, to whom will get our votes, to whether to have children—it would be wise to know WHY we do WHAT we do. To make intelligent value decisions, we need lots of verifiable evidence, and we must  know which basic assumptions apply in our quest for a well-thought-out life—a fulfilling, productive, and enjoyable life.

Many of our values are simple and fleeting. Shall I have toast or cereal for breakfast? Other value choices are moral or ethical choices. Shall I shoplift that blouse?  Should I murder my neighbor?  Should I storm the Capitol?

All of our values are based on assumptions: Self-centered, God-based, or Society-based. To be truly rational beings, we must thoroughly understand both the assumptions that we are using and the evidence that we apply to that assumption. Recently, we have seen many activities on both a national scale and on personal levels, that are based on totally false information. We want to avoid such irrationality in our own lives. And, many of us want to help others to think, and act, rationally. 

Philosophers of ethics generally assume that we are all rational beings—capable of free will. But we must be psychologically ready to act ethically. Psychologist Erich Fromm theorized that we start as selfish infants, but if we are loved, we reach a stage in which we recognize that other selfs are also important. If we haven’t reached this psychological level of maturity, Kant’s dictum that we should treat others as ends in themselves, never as means only is a psychological impossibility.

Fromm extends his continuum or loving abilities to humanitarian love, where one loves the people of the world—and acts on this value. But we might extend this continuum to those with such a passion for their humanitarian beliefs that they will die for them. Most of us have head of a soldier who has thrown his body on a hand grenade to save his comrades. Would Gandhi or King willingly die for their causes? I think, yes. Certainly many of their followers did die in their passionate pursuit of their purpose for their people! And what about the Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, after being imprisoned on trumped-up charges, then being nearly fatally poisoned ostensibly by the Russian government, his life was saved in a German hospital. He could have stayed in the West, but opted to return to Russia and was immediately imprisoned for 3 ½ years for violating his parole while he was unconscious in Germany. He was soon in court again for criticizing those who supported Putin-sponsored changes in the Russian Constitution. He is undoubtedly the greatest living humanitarian hero today. Will enough Russians and world leaders live their values and work for a democratic freedom for Russians? Doubtful, but let’s wait and see!

So attempting to understand our human values takes us across many human disciplines. And we may be only scratching the surface! And often living well-thought-out values takes courage. And intelligent courage is so hard to find today, what with all the pleasant distractions available.

Our humanness seems to have nearly infinite potential, but the finite hurdles often slow our pace. But let us take a few steps towards understanding, and possibly improving, our humanness.

Volume I discusses essential ideas about how we, and others, develop our values—and some things we might evaluate in clarifying and elevating our values.

Volume II looks at how we might evaluate the evidence that we use to fortify our values, and how we can think more logically. It then looks at a number of social problems, showing how we can find evidence, pro and con, from each basic assumption for each social concern. So which assumptions and evidence will you choose to determine YOUR human values?

––––––––

CHAPTER 1—WHERE ARE WE GOING?

A few years ago, I heard a young Tea Party member interviewed on TV. He said, I’m against socialism. The interviewer asked, What is socialism? And the young man responded, I don’t know, but I’m against it.

We, in America, call the Nordic countries socialist, because their governments own 10 to 35% of the industries. Is that good or bad? In the annual United Nations happiness surveys, the Nordic countries are in the top three. The U.S. is never higher than 16th, it is 19th this year. In the Economist’s surveys on the best democracies, Nordic countries take four of the top five places. The U.S. is 25th. In the list of countries with billionaires per million people, three Nordic countries are ahead of the U.S., which is 6th on the list. In income-per-person, the U.S. is again 6th, behind three Nordic countries. In perceived corruption in the society, a Transparency International annual survey, Denmark was seen as the least corrupt, the other Nordic countries were all in the top seven, but down the list at 23, was the good old U.S. of A.

Oh ya! Since some people have health care high on their priorities, how does America fare? Well, it spends more of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care than any other country—16.9%.  For this it gets the 37th best health-care system in the world, according to the World Health Organization. France spends 11.2% of its GDP on health-care and is rated as having the best health-care system in the world.

Taking another tack, you know that the government taxes us to pay for what we, or our legislators, say they want. We pay, as immediate taxes: income taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes and property taxes. But that still isn’t enough! So our government borrows. And who owes the money? Us! So, we have a delayed tax bill. With our $27 trillion debt, every American owes about $81,000—which amounts to about $214,000 owed per taxpayer—since not every person in America pays taxes. Some are babies, some are poor, and some have creative accountants!

Other countries, like Saudi Arabia and Norway, own parts of some of their industries. The profits reduce their taxes—but not in America, we are capitalistic. Private enterprise and its stockholders should take all of the profits—from extracting the oil that is under the ground or under the sea, from lumbering the forests on federal land, or mining the gold or other underground treasures on land owned by America.

Another area that may make some socially interested people question some values is in salaries. Only one national president in the world makes more in salary than the minimum paid a National Football League rookie. The president of Switzerland makes $507,000 and the lowest paid NFL rookie makes $495,000. But if he plays two years, he will be up to a minimum of $570,000. Then there is Tom Cruise’s $70 million for Mission Impossible. But the U.S. President makes $400,000. Canada’s leader makes $290,000, Russia’s $136,000, and Mexico’s president brings in a hefty $68,000. Maybe this is why we have better films and football, than we have national and international leadership!

These are all questions of societal values.  And we have been fed a great deal of political propaganda to make us believe that America offers the best of all possible worlds. Is it true? Can we think for ourselves? Should we bother?

VALUES—OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE?

Aristotle, in looking at aesthetics, reasoned that things like painting and music could be seen as beautiful, or not beautiful, because of elements in the object—like harmony, rhythm, and balance. So he thought that beauty could be in the object. Things might also be judged as beautiful because the person, the subject, viewing the object, or hearing the music, liked what was being experienced. So in the case of subjective evaluation—beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Truth, too, may be seen as objective or subjective. It can be a scientific, or empirical, which has been validated a number of times—and thus is objective. Or it can be subjectively determined and seen as, true for me. If there is an audience, it can be seen as propaganda. Non-objective facts have probably been with us since the dawn of civilization. The inquisitors of Galileo, the World War II propaganda of Himmler, and the many lies and rationalizations of Donald Trump are examples.  In the case of Trump, they were explained away by his advisor, Kellyanne Conway, as alternative facts. And millions of Americans believed them!

In the American presidential election of 2020, do we believe the state governments, both Republican and Democrat, that Joe Biden won the popular vote by seven million votes? If so, we have an objective truth. Or do we believe in the speeches of Donald Trump saying that the election was stolen from him—without having any objective evidence? If so, we have subjective truth. It was this type of subjective truth that led to the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump initiated 60 court actions to overturn the election. All judges, including those whom he had appointed, dismissed the actions because there was no evidence.

The subject of this work is values, ethics and morality. The objective and the subjective haunt these areas, too. In our personal lives, in our religions, in our politics, in our businesses, and in most organizations—we will see the interplay, or the war, between the objectivity of the values of some, versus the subjective value of others.

Many philosophers and most theologians believe that values are, or should be, objective. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount were commands from God that were to be universal and eternal. God didn’t say Thou shalt not commit adultery—except sometimes. Jesus didn’t say Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth—unless you want to conquer other nations or brag about how much money you have. There’s no sense waiting until you die to inherit the earth—take it now?

But when you leave the ivory tower, or the sanctuary, the reality is that values are relative. Some call this folk morality. They are subjective! Sell illegal drugs today and confess your sins tomorrow. Preach chastity today and tonight sexually violate children. Lecture on the evils of health insurance providers today, and tomorrow pad your re-election fund with gifts from the insurance industry.

A major debate among those who study ethics is whether we should merely listen to what God says, or go in a different direction. The Bible and Koran approve of slavery and capital punishment, and disapprove of homosexuality. Many Western citizens and their governments have done just the opposite. And, how many people in the West condemn all abortions, when the Bible strongly tells us that God requires abortion in at least one situation?

Most people live by relative, or practical, values, but often mouth the eternal verities. A relatively few see their values as being objectively true. We plan to view both aspects of values in a number of questions that rattle our intellectual, religious and political ideas.

OUR VALUES REST ON ASSUMPTIONS

Whatever our values, they are derived from our self-centered interests, God-based assumption, or what we think is best for our society. The roots of these values may be genetic or learned. If genetic, the genes may have been altered by environmental influences (called epigenetics). Our values can also be affected by factors that have developed our sub-conscious minds. And, of course, they are definitely influenced by our traditions and the influences of our parents, teacher, and religious and political leaders. Identifying and dissecting these various sources of our values is the mission of this volume.

But be warned, there is an interplay between our genes, our unconscious minds, and our conscious minds—and what information we believe is important, or true.

OUR IDENTITIES INDICATE OUR VALUES

Why have Americans become so divided?  We have often adopted irrational or meaningless self-identities that absorb a good deal of our time. They may be so important to us that we become one issue voters—

›  Voting for Bush because he was a born-again Christian,

›  For Obama because he was Black,

›  For Trump because he said he would appoint judges to stop abortions, or he would build a wall to keep out immigrants.

But,

›  Bush didn’t turn the other cheek, when he went to war, on false pretenses, to kill Saddam Hussein,

›  Obama didn’t achieve as much for Blacks as Southerner Lyndon Johnson did, And,

›  Trump did not stop abortions or build a wall—and Mexico has been loud and clear, that won’t pay for it.

Our identities are often straw houses in our minds that the Big Bad Wolf cannot blow down. Our commitment to save the life of a fetus may be so great that we kill adult doctors who perform abortions! Although abortion is sanctioned in the Bible (Numbers 5:11-29) and adultery is a capital crime in the Bible (Leviticus 20). But, evangelical one issue voters voted for an admitted multiple adulterer to obtain assurances that what they thought was in the Bible would be enacted into law.

If stopping the pregnancy of a fertilized ovum is a terrible crime, as many Catholics and evangelicals say it is, God is the major criminal! In the U.S. about one in eight pregnancies, approximately 500,000 each year, end as miscarriages. Far more fertilized ova never implant. So the number of God-induced abortions is enormous!

WHO ARE WE? OUR IDENTITIES

Our identities can be earned, such as a priest, professor or politician. These are often meaningful in the society. There are innumerable self-centered identities that we encounter. Some are meaningful, some are meaningless, and some are harmful. Our identities might include being: Ku Klux Klansmen, Antifa members, evangelicals, QAnon followers, capitalists, environmentalists, some are even died-in-the-wool Yankee fans.

Let’s take what we think we know about Jesus. As you know, none of the gospel writers, nor Paul, had ever seen Jesus. Biblical scholars know that Jesus was never a Christian. He was always Jewish. If he were alive today, he would probably be a reformed Jew. If for some reason he ever were to become a Christian, it would be likely that he would be in the Salvation Army. He certainly wouldn’t be a Catholic! But the rulers of the Church in Rome have been the greatest political manipulators of all time. Civilizations are lucky to last 500 years. Rome stumbled to a thousand, but the Catholic Church, by promising everlasting life, is approaching the two millennia mark and is going strong. Poor people want to reach the kingdom of heaven. The Pope promises that they will.

As people became more educated, they threw off the bishops’ blankets and cast the cardinals out of their governments. The French Revolution was as much to escape the pressure of the theological thumb as it was to rid the country of their robbing royalty.

Aristotle wrote that after the first seven years of childhood, you would know the adult that you would become. Lenin thought it took eight years. Many psychologists believe that the first four years of life can predict much of a person’s mental health. With so many Supreme Court Justices as products of Catholic educations, we understand how the basic assumptions of their lives were formed.

OUR BEHAVIOR IS BASED LARGELY ON OUR VALUES

Most of our behavior is influenced by our values. Most is based on our self-centered values. Some of our behavior is based on what we think are God-based values. The rest is based on what we believe is best for society. Your own society-based values may conflict with the realities cited above. Maybe you believe that salaries should be equalized a bit more. Maybe you believe that there are things that can be done to make your country happier or less corrupt. Maybe you believe that your country can have better health care for less money.

You may hold only a casual value-oriented opinion. Or, your value may be so strong that you are determined to do something about it. Should I join a political action group? Should I run for a political office? Should I pray for the country? Or, should I not worry about it and just settle into the sofa and watch some of my favorite re-runs?

Among the rioters in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, there is no doubt that it was designed and developed  by the then-President Donald Trump. And we all know that when an angel, or the President, speaks, only truth falls from their lips. And, those who don’t believe are infidels and must be executed. Hang Mike Pence. Shoot Nancy Pelosi!

How many of these rioters knew, or cared, that their President had all nine symptoms for the personality disorder labelled narcissism? How many realized that much of what he had done as President was based upon personality disorder, not on what was best for the country?

How many rioters were there to have a legitimate reason to assuage their inferiority complexes by acting violently in what they mistakenly believed to be in defense of their Constitution, which they had never read? How many were thoroughly aware of the societal values that they thought they were defending? How many had verified the evidence that their President was telling them to act on? Or, was it enough that they had heard for months that the election would be rigged, then after the election—that it was rigged. Psychologists tell us that after hearing something for 20 times, you tend to believe it—but they had heard the false message hundreds of times.

Still, during the impeachment trial of former President Trump, a month later, Republican Senators, who had sworn to be impartial jurors, met with the Trump attorneys during the trial—to plot strategy. The Republican identity was far more important than their sworn American identity. Can a democratic-republican country be effective when their legislators have more loyalty to their party than to the country? George Washington didn’t think so. In his Farewell Address, he said that political parties were a deep threat to the health of the nation for they allowed a small but artful and enterprising minority to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party. General George is probably turning over in his grave. And many Americans are turning back to evaluating their values—to save their country!

THINKING THROUGH OUR VALUES

If we are to truly be homo sapiens—thinking humans, we should certainly understand what and how we think. Is everything we do well-thought-out? How much of our behavior is merely reacting? Which forces have directed our life’s choices?

Mother? Father? Our religious leader? A teacher? A politician? Our travels? Our friends? Our education? The radio or television programs we experience? Our political party’s platform? Our happy or unhappy life situation? Our business interests? Our genes?

So many influences on our behavior that cloud, redirect or influence our thinking—thinking that we usually believe we have sound reasons to believe.

Oh!, but there’s more! Have you ever had a discussion about politics or religion? These are the two areas, we are told, to avoid discussing. Why? Because you are dealing with basic assumptions primarily, and with the interpretation of the evidence that each of you apply to your assumptions. If you don’t understand your own assumptions and the assumptions of the others in the discussion, you can’t have a meaningful discussion. Perhaps one of you can change the other person’s assumptions. Highly unlikely! The point is, that we must know not only our own bases for thinking, but also those with whom we shall discuss important issues. Without a deep understanding of our own views and those with whom we are discussing, we can’t really have meaningful discussions.

SO—

Do we walk the walk or merely talk the talk? Do our actions speak louder than our words? Why do we do what we do? Do we think? Have we thoroughly examined our values? After all, "they are us!"

Some people look only for pleasure in their lives. The Bible, in Ecclesiastes 8:15, tells us, Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry, and Isaiah 22:13, provides a reason when it predicts, Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die.  But, is it possible that there are other values than gluttony and drunkenness that should guide us to our graves?

How many of us happily pursue the path of pleasure as we prepare to rendezvous with the Reaper-Grim?  If this is your proclivity, you are using self-centered values. Might our paths be more fulfilling if we follow those of Mother Theresa in India or Albert Sweitzer in Africa? They were following what they believed to be God-based values. But there is another path, the society-based value path. Bill and Melinda Gates, with their philanthropy, are doing what they can to make the world’s society better. Did Donald Trump have the world society’s or America’s society’s best interests at heart when he pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement? Or was it best only because of his narcissistic personality’s need to feel superior?

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS—THE START OF OUR THINKING

All of our voluntary actions are based on what we value at that instant—and they may be understood as being grounded in a non-provable basic assumption. The possible basic assumptions are: self-centered, God-based, or society-based.

It might be offered that all of our values actions are really self-centered. The gourmet is obviously indulging himself. But, was Mother Theresa’s major motivation to get her soul to heaven? Is the motivation of the Gateses to be applauded by the masses for their generosity? I think not! But questions about why we do what we do have been with us for millennia. Philosophers and psychologists tell us that it is pursuing pleasure or happiness. Freud thought it was largely about sex. Mill thought that there were different qualities of pleasure. Modern epigenetic science indicates that many of our behaviors, and our apparent value choices, are programed by, are at least strongly influenced by, our genes and the environmental influences on them.

Donald Trump’s behavior has long been known to be the result of his narcistic personality. Books have verified the early childhood experiences that have contributed to his problem. But people, without a strong background in the psychological sciences often look for surface values on which he bases his behavior—riches, white supremacy, and being re-elected. For him, the basics of his value-driven behavior was in his psychological needs, not in intellectually based values. To what degree were they genetic or epigenetic? To what degree were they learned?

The basic assumptions of our family and friends often take their behavior in different directions than our own basic assumptions are taking us. And we wonder how people can be so stupid as to not agree with us! That is why we are often cautioned about arguing about politics or religion. What societal value is more important, liberty or equality? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Is there a heaven or a hell? Is the soul implanted in the ovum at the instant of conception? These and many other unprovable ideas can be so strongly held by some that they will kill, or even start a war, to prove or protect their non-provable assumptions. The advocacy of these assumptions can have significant effects on the nation and the world.

Look at the idea that Pope Pius IX proposed in 1869, that the soul is infused in the fertilized ovum at the instant of conception. He based his pronouncement on several beliefs.

›  The sin of Adam and Eve of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was passed down to all people. This is their Original Sin. The Catholics believe this because a bishop in North Africa, Augustine, said it was true, about 1700 years ago.

›  Both Matthew and Luke relate the story of a virgin birth. In those days no one was even remotely aware of how conception actually occurred. Neither evangelist had ever met Jesus or Mary. Still there were a number of cases of virgin births in Egyptian, Greek and other mythological-religious belief systems.

There is nothing in Christian Scriptures that mentions an immaculate conception—that Mary was born without Original Sin. In fact, the concept of Original Sin is not mentioned in the Bible. That is why Orthodox and Protestant Christians, reject the idea. However, there are so many Catholics espousing the idea that others felt there must be some truth in the idea. So without reference to the Bible, that is clear in continually stating that human life starts with birth, zealots have redefined the medical terms of embryo and fetus to be identical with infant or child. Then they used emotional pictures and videos to show parts of a fetal extraction to indicate a murder of what they call a child.

None of this emotional appeal is logical, but as we will point out often—most of us are psychological, not logical. In the next volume of this work, we will look more deeply into logic. Beliefs have more chance of being true if they are empirically verified, that is, if the evidence can be repeated in subsequent experiments. Historical evidence must be verified from several sources, But the evidence for a soul being implanted into a fertilized ovum is merely an unverifiable opinion.

What we call thinking is commonly only trying to find evidence that backs up our opinions. When a Nobel prize winning physiologist says that there is, or is not, a God—it has about the same validity as a judge, an economist, or a high school drop-out making the same statement.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, with the appointment of Justice Barrett, 78% of the Supreme Court justices will have been raised Roman Catholic. Since 22% of Americans are Catholic, it gives the reactionary and conservative views of the Church more leverage because it has developed the basic assumptions of seven of the justices. It is very rare that educated people will change their basic assumptions. However, it appears that Justice Sotomayor has assumptions more in line with Jesus, as written in the Scriptures, than with the popes and their often-changing positions on tradition. For example, Thomas Aquinas was the acknowledged theologian of the Church for several hundred years. Following Aristotle, he declared that male babies got their souls about a month after conception, and females got theirs about a month after that. So, if the criterion for when abortion is moral depends on then the soul arrives, as Pope Pius IX decided, an abortion during the first month or two of pregnancy would be moral according to Aquinas.

But the hallowed idea of Catholic tradition took an immediate turn in 1869 and a new tradition started that year. So as good Catholics, 6 of the 7 Catholics on the Court could make a decision counter to the earlier, well researched Roe v Wade decision.  The taxes required to educate the unwanted children born, and their contribution to climate change will then stay in place until future presidents have the opportunity to appoint non-reactionary judges that reflect how the majority of the citizens view their Constitution in terms of providing for the general welfare of the people.

UNCONSCIOUS INFLUENCES ON OUR THINKING

But, not all of our positive feelings come from our value choices. They can come from our satisfaction of our psychological drives, like power, or from our emotional need to find or to give love. And some of our behavior that we may judge as being moral or immoral may have it roots in our genes or in our subconscious minds. These can often be intertwined with our values. For instance, a boy may choose to play football for a self-centered reason. It is fun. When he tackles an opponent, he feels good because his basic psychological power drive is satisfied. When he feels good because he has helped a younger player, that is a satisfaction of his emotional need to be unselfishly loving. So, our value system can be interlaced with psychological drives and emotional needs. In this book we are primarily concerned with the development of values and their possible conflicts with each other. But we will briefly explore the genetic and unconscious reasons that may be generating behavior that we may erroneously think is freely chosen, but is primarily a reaction—not a choice.

› Why does one person value money above all else?

› Why does another value raping or killing?

› Why does another value teaching?

› Why does one value preaching?

› Why does one value suicide?

› Why does one value bullying?

› Why does one value parenting?

› Why does one value playing football?

› Why does one value watching football?

The various values that we hold and live are nearly infinite. Why do we hold such values? The reasons may be springing from our genes, the epigenetic influences on our genes, adjustments we make to our stressors, our subconscious memories, intellectual decisions, or influences on our thinking from our environment. Whatever the cause, we will have either valid reasons or invalid psychological rationalizations for what we do.

AND DEEPER STILL

We all remember John Locke’s theory of three and a half centuries ago, that we are all born with minds that are blank slates, and that we learn to become what we are after we are born. Freud believed it. Parents who want to adopt infants believe it. But it isn’t true. Influences on our thinking and behavior may actually be transmitted from a few generations back, from epigenetic changes in the parents’ genes, and from negative influences on the mother during the intrauterine development period. So epigenetic changes to the embryo and fetus can significantly affect the way the mind functions throughout life.  No one is born with a blank slate for a mind!

APPLYING EVIDENCE TO THE MIX

As we mature, we are offered evidence to direct our lives from parents and friends, teachers and neighbors, politicians, radio and TV commentators, physicians and priests, and even enemies—who may tell us where to go! But, how probable is the evidence? Few people

still believe that the world is flat. Few believe that vaccinations don’t prevent diseases. Most believe that humans are too numerous, too energy-dependent, and are causing climate change. So what is the most probable evidence that we can use? Do we put all of our chips on FAITH, or do we bet on FACTS? And if facts, which ones are more valid?

›  If a Nobel Prize winner in economics advises you to take vitamin C, what is her expertise?

›  If, during a pandemic, the major epidemiological communicable disease specialist at the Center for Disease Control advises you to wear a mask to protect yourself and others, how valid might that evidence be?

›  If a mother of an autistic child tells you not to vaccinate your children, what is the quality of her evidence?

›  If all the weather commentators tell you to prepare for a hurricane, but a very popular radio commentator, who dropped out of college after failing all courses his first year, tells you there is nothing to worry about because the hurricane scare is a climate-change inspired hoax—who should you believe? (You’re right! It was Rush Limbaugh.)

Where do we get our facts? Do you listen to mainstream television news? Do you read the New York Times, The Guardian, The Economist? Or are all your facts found  in QAnon or Twitter feeds? What we know is the absolute truth! Are your sources of information balanced? Have you tried to find unbiased verification for what you know.

RATING THE PRESS IN TERMS OF THEIR BIAS

Allsides is a news rating system that uses several tools in its evaluation. It has rated these news sources  from right to left, from reactionary and very conservative through moderate and to liberal on the left.

In a 2014 report it also rated additional news sources, based to a large degree on the political position of the audiences.

Table: Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience

––––––––

AND SO—

Because of the myriad of influences on our thinking and behavior, we must not only look at philosophy and ethical theory to explain our choices and behavior, we must look at the brain, neuroscience and psychology also. We should know how to evaluate the evidence.

We are not the thinking animals that Aristotle proposed. We are thinking and reacting humans with our biological and psychological makeups complicating our thinking and our traditional belief that we have the free will to choose our values and our life-styles. New knowledge tears us away from the prison of our traditions, then paroles us in a world strongly influenced by genes and unconscious drives and memories. If we are to gain some freedom to direct our lives and guide the progress of our society—we had better understand the hurdles and slopes that can hinder, or aid, us in our progress.

The limited knowledge that we have, would boggle the minds of our philosophical and psychological ancestors. And, there are so many pieces to the puzzle of the perplexity of our lives—and intelligently living them.

David Hume, undoubtedly a member of the elite of Western philosophers, wrote that we cannot deduce ought from is. But I am convinced that we must understand the is before we can determine what we ought.

It’s complicated—that’s why the book is so long!

SECTION I—AN INTRODUCTION TO HOW AND WHY WE CHOOSE OUR VALUES

I dare say that very few of us, myself included, base all of our behavior on rational well-thought-out choices. But as Miguel Cervantes has Don Quixote warn us—In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd. Ah yes, dreaming that impossible dream that we can understand why we think what we think—and why we do, what we do. But we are getting closer—closer than Aristotle, closer than Locke, and closer than Freud.

Some of our behavior is strongly influenced by our genes. Sometimes we are influenced by memories that have long-since sunk into our sub-conscious minds, but are still chemically inscribed in our brains.

Our behavior and the value choices we make are influenced by a combination of genetic propensities, epigenetic imprints, what we have learned and internalized from an early age, the realities of our unconscious memories, our basic assumptions and the types of evidence that we choose to believe.

If your