A question of values
There are things that are worth dying for. And there are things that are worth living for.
These are largely the same things. I phrase it the way I have because one must be prepared for all eventualities. There are many people who have shown that they can die like a hero, despite having lived like pigs; meanwhile, there are many others who have lived lives of great service and generosity, but who, at the first threat of pain or deprivation, have betrayed those they professed to love and serve. Sometimes the test comes in one form, and sometimes in the other. We do not know how we would perform when it comes to the sticking point, which is why our Lord has taught us to pray that we be saved from the time of trial.
In any case, if we are to talk of values generally, we must first clarify our ultimate values: not because we are likely to be faced with decisions bearing directly on those ultimate values, but only so we have clarified what is ultimate, and what is of derivative or secondary value. This is because we are rarely faced with clear choices between good and evil; we are more likely to have a choice between competing goods or competing evils. The challenge then is to decide which of our alternatives is more compatible, or closer, to our ultimate values.
Whether preacher, philosopher, or politician, the person who would guide others must not only be prepared to suggest which secondary values are right and proper, but also be able to show how these subsidiary goods relate to ultimate goods. The challenge for those addressed by preacher, philosopher, or politician is to evaluate what is being sold them, and also whether the seller is being honest in representing the product. "For many false teachers have gone out into the world," as St. Paul saith, and caveat emptor is more than just an economic slogan.
One of the techniques of the demagogue is to treat secondary values as ultimate values. But another is to misrepresent what the demagogue's ultimate values really are, speaking to one's hearers as if both speaker and hearers shared the same goals, and using slippery language to gain assent to a course of action that in fact betrays the ultimate goals of the hearers. Lots of preachers speak in a kind of numinous code, concealing the fact that they do not, in fact, believe all the things that their parishioners believe. Politicians, too, use words to suggest agreement while pressing for a course of action that does not support the values of the voters. Philosophers, meanwhile, often say exactly what they mean, but people assume that nobody could really mean what they are saying, and therefore do not take them at face value (this can be a costly mistake). Philosophers are frequently more honest than preachers and politicians, but they can afford to be, since their hearers will tell their own lies to themselves as needed -- as indeed they will when tempted by too-easy suggestions from the pulpit or the hustings.
Even as I state what is obvious to me about others, I take it as a warning to myself to actually mean what I say as well as say what I mean. For that is what we call integrity.
These are largely the same things. I phrase it the way I have because one must be prepared for all eventualities. There are many people who have shown that they can die like a hero, despite having lived like pigs; meanwhile, there are many others who have lived lives of great service and generosity, but who, at the first threat of pain or deprivation, have betrayed those they professed to love and serve. Sometimes the test comes in one form, and sometimes in the other. We do not know how we would perform when it comes to the sticking point, which is why our Lord has taught us to pray that we be saved from the time of trial.
In any case, if we are to talk of values generally, we must first clarify our ultimate values: not because we are likely to be faced with decisions bearing directly on those ultimate values, but only so we have clarified what is ultimate, and what is of derivative or secondary value. This is because we are rarely faced with clear choices between good and evil; we are more likely to have a choice between competing goods or competing evils. The challenge then is to decide which of our alternatives is more compatible, or closer, to our ultimate values.
Whether preacher, philosopher, or politician, the person who would guide others must not only be prepared to suggest which secondary values are right and proper, but also be able to show how these subsidiary goods relate to ultimate goods. The challenge for those addressed by preacher, philosopher, or politician is to evaluate what is being sold them, and also whether the seller is being honest in representing the product. "For many false teachers have gone out into the world," as St. Paul saith, and caveat emptor is more than just an economic slogan.
One of the techniques of the demagogue is to treat secondary values as ultimate values. But another is to misrepresent what the demagogue's ultimate values really are, speaking to one's hearers as if both speaker and hearers shared the same goals, and using slippery language to gain assent to a course of action that in fact betrays the ultimate goals of the hearers. Lots of preachers speak in a kind of numinous code, concealing the fact that they do not, in fact, believe all the things that their parishioners believe. Politicians, too, use words to suggest agreement while pressing for a course of action that does not support the values of the voters. Philosophers, meanwhile, often say exactly what they mean, but people assume that nobody could really mean what they are saying, and therefore do not take them at face value (this can be a costly mistake). Philosophers are frequently more honest than preachers and politicians, but they can afford to be, since their hearers will tell their own lies to themselves as needed -- as indeed they will when tempted by too-easy suggestions from the pulpit or the hustings.
Even as I state what is obvious to me about others, I take it as a warning to myself to actually mean what I say as well as say what I mean. For that is what we call integrity.