Whose Values?

Aug 28, 2015 by

A value is only a personal preference … but of no binding moral effect upon others.

Devin Foley –

“Nowadays we hear a great deal about ‘teaching values’ in schools. Although sincerely held by many people who mean well, this notion is a mistaken concept. For what true education attempts to impart is meaning, not value. This sly misemployment of the word ‘value’ as a substitute for such words as ‘norm,’ ‘standard,’ ‘principle,’ and ‘truth’ is the deliberate contrivance of the doctrinaire positivists, who deny that any moral significance of a transcendent or enduring character exists. In America, the notion of educational ‘values’ has been thrust forward by sociologists and educationists of the Instrumentalist school; it is intended as a substitute for the religious assumptions about human nature that formerly were taken for granted in schools. A ‘value,’ as educationists employ that unfortunate word, is a personal preference, gratifying perhaps to the person who holds it, but of no binding moral effect upon others. Choose what values you will, or ignore the lot of them: it’s a matter of what gives you, the individual, the most pleasure or the least pain.”

That was Russell Kirk in a co-speech entitled Purifying the Dialect of the Tribe which was given in 1989.

Today, we predominantly hear about “values.” It started in the schools and made its way through society as the kids grew up. Change often works that way.

But was it good change? If values can be defined as anything by anyone, are they meaningless? How then do we determine right from wrong and wrong from right as a society? Do we rely upon mere majority rule and brute force, or do we reestablish some uniting moral order that transcends even the power of government?

Source: Whose Values? | Intellectual Takeout

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.