| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The terms of the debate are in need of an update.
People often speak of “values:” “American values,” “family values,” etc. Examples of things that are considered values are of course, “families” or “cooperation” or “opportunity.” And so we have traditionally used vague sentences such as “we value cooperation” and “we value opportunity.”
A dictionary definition of the word “value” includes:
“A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter).”
Are “cooperation” or “families” or “opportunity” a principle, or a standard? Few single words could be a principle or a standard. Does it help to add words, for example, “we value successful families”? It just underlines how vague it is. We “value” them? Great—that and 5 bucks will buy you a cappucino.
They are perhaps a “quality,” but that word is also vague. This whole debate is in need of an update of the terms in which it is conducted.
I would like to contribute a suggestion. A preferable word might be “goals.” Some examples:
That works very well, does it not? We can define and specify and particularize a goal, via one or more sentences. A person or persons can take action to achieve a goal.
I’m not suggesting that it’s of no benefit to talk about values. I’m just saying that it’s in need of an upgrade.
It is much more powerful to speak of goals, than of values.
