On Developing Human Values ...

The subject of values has become a hot topic for politicians. One party points to the other and finds a lack of values in one sphere or another of life--with particular emphasis on family values. Divorce, infidelity, and child support vie with debates over legislation deemed immoral by a particular group, such as legalizing same-sex marriage. Occasionally, the ridiculous surfaces in news reports, as when a six-year-old boy was accused of "sexual harassment" for kissing a female playmate on the cheek (after, so he claims, she asked him to!). Obviously, the meaning of the word values tends to become confused in the milieu of conflicting interests and disparate points of view.

The term values points to what we value, to what we consider to be of worth or merit. When related to morals or ethics, the term becomes moral values or ethical values or human values or family values. And what we value can undergo change. For example, just over one hundred years ago, the violation of Native American rights was considered acceptable by some, and tribes were decimated because men and women from Europe valued Native Americans as something less than human. Not so long ago, enslavement of African Americans was accepted as legitimate by some because African Americans were considered to have less worth than men and women of European stock. In both cases--Native American genocide and African American enslavement--the twisted values judgments involved were given a moral basis through interpretations of the Scriptures and religious dogmas of European religious groups. It was only when reason and humanistic values surfaced that efforts to eliminate the maltreatments were initiated.

Some believe that moral and ethical rules have been divinely revealed, therefore all one needs to do to lead a moral life is to adhere to the rule ethics. For others, there can be no question that values develop out of group life. In either case, at times family values will vary, even among those who accept the same revealed ethical source. Thus, my family values may coincide or differ from yours depending on the life patterns we accept. However, my values--or what is of worth to me--must not be permitted to jeopardize what is of worth or value to you unless my values or your values permit or endorse the mistreatment of others.

For example, my father believed, on the basis of Scripture, that to spare the rod was to spoil the child (Proverbs 10: 13, 13:24). He never hesitated to use physical force to compel obedience. I disagree with this notion. I would never slap, hit, or beat my sons, nor would I ever subject them to demeaning or dehumanizing language or treatment--and my sons have turned out to be splendid young men. My family values differ from those of my father. I do not accept any justification for physical punishment or mental maltreatment of children, whether based in Scripture or on other arguments. Supportive love and the use of reason, openness to hearing other persons' points of view, understanding of other persons' problems, willingness to compromise and to look at the total situation rather than impose rules--whether or not divinely sanctioned--appear to me to provide a better way of raising children than playing the role of an authoritative, noncompromising, bully parent.

In my study of religions and cultures, I have noted that the deities that subject their own divine children to horrendous suffering for one reason or another tend to endorse values among believers that favor harsh treatment of children. The gods and goddesses which demand from their followers sacrifices--either human or other animal--as part of the worship due to them have adherents who find salvation in the magic of spilled blood and burnt flesh. In other words, divinely ordained violence appears to sanction violence among humans. A Christian god that produces a son destined by divine fate to suffer and be killed for the redemption of the world can scarcely be expected to produce followers who oppose violence and suffering and death as corrective measures for misbehavior.

Obviously, there will be those who will reject what I have written and will ask on what do I base a value system. I have many resources but perhaps three will suffice as illustrations.

First, I turn to a tale about a Hasidic rabbi named Moshe Lieb of Sasov. Hasidism began in the eighteenth century as a popular mystical movement among the Jews of Poland and spread throughout Europe during the nineteenth century. The label Hasid was derived from the Hebrew word hesed, which has the basic meaning of "loyalty" or perhaps "pious." The Hasidim were the "pious ones." According to the story, Rabbi Moshe Lieb had stated that God had made everything for a purpose. In response to an inquiry as to why God would have created atheists, the rabbi said:

   There is no quality and there is no power of man that was created to no
   purpose. But to what end can the denial of God have been created? This too
   can be uplifted through deeds of charity. For if someone comes to you and
   asks your help, you shall not turn him away with pious words, saying: "Have
   faith and take your troubles to God!" You shall act as if there was no God,
   and as if there were only one person in the world who could help this
   man--only yourself.

In other words, what the rabbi was saying was that, in this particular situation, one should base human value systems on an atheistic position and respond to human need and human pain as one human being reaching out to another. One does not respond to those in need because some scripture says you must or because one will get rewards or earn points for the afterlife; one reacts out of the wellsprings of human compassion and because the one in need is a member of the human family.

A second ethical guideline, developed by Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal theologian who became a humanist, is known as situation ethics. Fletcher rejected rule ethics as too inflexible and argued that, in a given situation, all the facts involved should be considered and the response should be governed by Christian love (agape) or, for the non-Christian, by the greatest good (sum-mum bonum). Response to human cries for help comes from the heart, involves evaluation of the situation, and seeks to provide the greatest good for all concerned.

Should Fletcher's ethic involve too much analysis for a situation demanding a quick response, I find a third value source in the Ethical Culture Movement. Founded in 1876 by Rabbi Felix Adler, Ethical Culture focuses on ethics, not theology, and includes both deists and freethinkers. The emphasis is on "deeds, not creeds" and the challenge is to live so as to evoke the highest moral and ethical values in others and in one's self, to seek that which is best for others and for one's self, and to commit one's life to living according to the highest principles known to humans. I find solid guidance both in the teachings of Adler and in the writings of those who have extended his thinking.

For me, Lieb's atheist example and Adler's ethical teachings, combined with Fletcher's situation ethics, provide basic satisfactory moral and ethical guides for human behavior.

Gerald A. Larue is professor emeritus of religion, adjunct professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California, the author of several books, and the 1989 Humanist of the Year.