A useful hierarchy, but I think it worth noting that your definition of the term "Value" differs somewhat from its conventional meaning. Here you are defining it as something like a preference, whereas conventionally values are more fundamental and may even be used as a justification for breaking actual laws - e.g. people being arrested for participating in non-violent direct action to protest about something that conflicts with their "values" such as pacifism, or the importance of care for the natural world.
Thanks Richard. I see your point, but my focus in this article is only on explicitly defined shared values (espoused), which are important to distinguish from the actual deep principles or beliefs people actually hold (enacted).
And, just for clarity, I don't think of them as a hierarchy; I think of them as a typology. Broad strokes it's probably easiest to understand them as a progression in something like severity, but in fact, that isn't strictly true. As you point out, Values are not necessarily less important than Laws. And a Guideline to check the fuel level is way more serious in its consequences than a rule like, "In chess, the white player goes first."
I appreciate your comment though, because there is an interesting relationship between Values and Laws. They are united in their need for self-reflection and self-awareness. In the case of Laws, awareness is needed to effectively operationalize it though we could say that one’s awareness may not need to be conscious, as in a case in which someone just knows (in the body) a boundary was broken though they may not know why. If it were outside their awareness completely, according to how I’m defining it, then it would be a very, very, very poor Law.
I also don't define Values exclusively as "preferences" though I do think that is one way they are useful. In fact, I've found 10 different uses for shared values (or 10 "types" of values), which I obviously couldn't cover here. If you're interested, share your email address and I'll email you a copy of my draft ebook about those 10 types.
Regardless, I'm not arguing that these categories are objectively more true or that they should only ever be defined this way, just that I've found this to be a very useful typology. :)
It's a great discussion... Two similar threads I've pondered is comparing/contrasting "Ethics, Morals, Values and Virtues" as well as "Preferences, Boundaries and Ultimatums"
This article and thoughtwork fits nicely into shaping up a style of governance where multiple people can co-create and cooperate as the ultra-social species we are :)
A useful hierarchy, but I think it worth noting that your definition of the term "Value" differs somewhat from its conventional meaning. Here you are defining it as something like a preference, whereas conventionally values are more fundamental and may even be used as a justification for breaking actual laws - e.g. people being arrested for participating in non-violent direct action to protest about something that conflicts with their "values" such as pacifism, or the importance of care for the natural world.
Thanks Richard. I see your point, but my focus in this article is only on explicitly defined shared values (espoused), which are important to distinguish from the actual deep principles or beliefs people actually hold (enacted).
And, just for clarity, I don't think of them as a hierarchy; I think of them as a typology. Broad strokes it's probably easiest to understand them as a progression in something like severity, but in fact, that isn't strictly true. As you point out, Values are not necessarily less important than Laws. And a Guideline to check the fuel level is way more serious in its consequences than a rule like, "In chess, the white player goes first."
I appreciate your comment though, because there is an interesting relationship between Values and Laws. They are united in their need for self-reflection and self-awareness. In the case of Laws, awareness is needed to effectively operationalize it though we could say that one’s awareness may not need to be conscious, as in a case in which someone just knows (in the body) a boundary was broken though they may not know why. If it were outside their awareness completely, according to how I’m defining it, then it would be a very, very, very poor Law.
I also don't define Values exclusively as "preferences" though I do think that is one way they are useful. In fact, I've found 10 different uses for shared values (or 10 "types" of values), which I obviously couldn't cover here. If you're interested, share your email address and I'll email you a copy of my draft ebook about those 10 types.
Regardless, I'm not arguing that these categories are objectively more true or that they should only ever be defined this way, just that I've found this to be a very useful typology. :)
It's a great discussion... Two similar threads I've pondered is comparing/contrasting "Ethics, Morals, Values and Virtues" as well as "Preferences, Boundaries and Ultimatums"
This article and thoughtwork fits nicely into shaping up a style of governance where multiple people can co-create and cooperate as the ultra-social species we are :)
thx for putting it to page Chris!