Choosing Your Values, Virtues, Vices and Sins

I want to thank all of you who have followed my last few months of political commentary. We have especially explored the differences between those who are uncomfortable with change and those who can face it with hope as an opportunity to improve matters – those who fear the risk of losing what they have and those who have the faith to work with strangers to achieve what they cannot do by themselves.

Values and virtues underlie our private and public choices. And, I want to move on to thinking about what makes us decide that something is good or bad and then choose what we will or won’t do. This column is about to make a shift. I thought a little fair warning was in order. Here we go…

Living by Our Stories

The stories that we tell each other explain our world and give meaning to our lives. Our stories illustrate our cultural values and model our desired virtues. They teach moral lessons and set the foundation for our debates. Thus, we should think carefully about our chosen stories and beliefs.

When you were young, were you told to be good because Santa Claus knew if you were naughty or nice? Even the stories that we openly acknowledge as myths or fables are repeated to illustrate what we should or should not do and how we should relate to others. For instance, the story of Pandora’s Box illustrates the bad that can happen from disobeying the instructions of someone older and wiser. Believing that thunder is the laughter of the gods can help ease a child’s fear.

This week, Public Policy Polling (a highly ranked organization with a history of reliable results) examined widespread conspiracy theories sometimes held by American voters.

The Path to “Constructive Virtues”

My first published essays were as installments in my newspaper column “@ChumForThought,” published in the Dayton Review. “Chum” is the word for chopped fish waste that is thrown overboard to attract other fish – especially sharks. I believe that comparing ideas can be a force for good that attracts us to each other. Strangers often become friends as they talk and work together, uniting to solve mutual problems.

The column was intended for my neighbors in a small, rural, Iowa town. I hoped to encourage conservatives to think about their ideas and liberals to come out of the closet. This book, Constructive Virtues, extends my collected essays – largely on similar, and sometimes contentious, themes.

Many people prefer to avoid controversy as they would avoid swimming with sharks. You sometimes hear

Essay: When you say “WE,” just who do you mean?

Information and comments on the essay:

When you say “WE,” just who do you mean?

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKQUdLaXZwZVF5aDg/edit?usp=sharing

#fundamentalism #authoritarianism #human #development #integral

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

When you say “WE,” just who do you mean?

Family is always, obviously, “WE.” But stopping there just puts too many limits on the culture that we can achieve. If WE is only family, you need a strict father or tribal chief to enforce order and to lead YOUR cousins on plundering raids against OTHER families or tribes.

If your WE is too small, you have to always arm yourselves and be vigilant to protect your life and property against the next small group that defines “US” as just “OUR family” or “OUR tribe.” 

Without broader cooperation, life just becomes too hard and too dangerous and it often becomes necessary to attack other families or tribes to survive. Our philosophy becomes, “If we do not stand for ourselves, first, foremost, and always, we stand to fall.” If WE is too small, it is moral to take what YOU can from THEM because OUR needs are more important to US because survival is always the highest value.

Or, do you get your values and sense of who you are from a larger association, community of faith, or regional alliance? Do you identify primarily as Scandinavian Lutherans or Southern Baptists? Is YOUR version of God the ONLY TRUE God? My, how comforting that

Essay: Buddhist “Right Speech” as a practical virtue

Information and comments on the essay:

Buddhist “Right Speech” as a practical virtue

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKZG9KZVRoYXhGUmM/edit?usp=sharing

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

Buddhist “Right Speech” as a practical virtue

You may know that I am writing a book about virtues. I added the Buddhist “Noble Eightfold Path” to my listing of virtues after an unproductive search for a virtue that fully embodied “delicacy of speech.” That is, the deliberate choice of words that carefully avoids damaging the fragile stem of newly-sprouted expression in others. It was gentler than tact. It was more specific than thoughtfulness. It was more loving than kindness or even loving-kindness. It was a gentler movement of a whispered expression than love. I could think of nothing more apt then the first Eightfold path virtue of “Right Speech.”

The Buddhist concept of Right Speech, of course, covers the courser commissions of lying, malicious slander, harsh anger, and idle gossip. However, to me, in this moment, it also needed to go past “do no harm,” and past pure and absolute gentleness–all the way to nurturing delicacy without hint of harm; speech that was fully, aptly, right.

I have been in the writing practice of completing a fully-formed suite of ideas, usually about a single-spaced page, and taking it downstairs to read aloud to my wife. She is usually quite tolerant and will pause in whatever she is doing to receive it. She rarely responds with anything but mild acceptance or a simple, thoughtful word of approval. Sometimes she notices one of my characteristic shifts in verb tense or a typo and I am grateful to her for noticing that.

Last night, she called up the stairs to say that I she had sent me an e-mail and asked if I had read it. No, I wasn’t aware of it yet, but I would check it out. I discovered that she had written the first chapter of a children’s book, based on her childhood experiences. At the end, she had written,

Essay: Conservative values vs. Liberal values

Information and comments on the essay:

Conservative values vs. Liberal values

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks
Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKRDVCZDNobEdUUkE/edit?usp=sharing

#Conservative #values vs. #Liberal values. Jonathan #Haidt #Virtues

Read by the author:

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

Conservative values vs. Liberal values

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt recently published research that has been taken to indicate that conservatives hold six key values while liberals hold only three. Naturally, some commentators have had a great time with this one. Haidt followed this up with a new book: “The Righteous Mind.”

This was all based on the results of a “Moral Foundations questionnaire” completed by 2,212 participants. In the end, both liberals and conservatives are seen to relate positively to the concepts of Fairness, Liberty and Caring for the weak.

This is all good and commendable, as far as it goes. However, I made a point of finding and viewing all of the Republican primary debates and heard something else. I was left with serious doubts about the consequences of many proposed policies… and the callous audience reactions to them. The virtues of Fairness and Caring for the weak seemed to be missing in action. Individual Liberties received a lot of emphasis but issues of civil Liberties were neglected. The overall take-away seemed to be: