26.4: Fundamental Values- Clashes and Tradeoffs

Basic Values

Members of different cultures often have at least somewhat different values. We will consider this below, but let’s begin thinking about ourselves. In a large, heterogenous country like the United States, there are many disagreements about values, but there are some basic values that most of us share. Many of the most basic disagreements in our society involve clashes among these values. Often these values reinforce each other, but there can also be tensions among them. In some cases— the hard ones—you can have more of one value only by having less of another.

Consider the following values:

1. Freedom or liberty
2. Majoritarianism (majority rule, i.e., democracy)
3. Equal opportunity
4. The need for security
5. Community moral standards

Basic Tradeoffs

Virtually everyone in our country believes that democracy, the rule of the many, is a good thing. But democracy can be in tension with other values, most obviously individual rights and liberties. A majority can tyrannize a minority just as much as a dictator can. For example, until the 1960s, poll taxes and other public policies made it almost impossible for African Americans in many parts of this country to vote.

A chief purpose of a constitution, a Bill of Rights, and judicial review (review of lower court decisions by higher courts) is to guard against a tyranny of the majority. People have certain fundamental rights that cannot be violated, even if the majority wants to. But where should we allow majority rule, and where do individual rights override it?

Freedoms or liberties or rights are in tension with other values. For example, as we’ve seen with the anti-vaccination movement, we have all been made less safe because of the freedom that has been offered to parents in many states. Indeed, there are even tensions among liberties themselves. For example, freedom of expression and the press can be argued to trump other freedoms, as without it our other freedoms could be abused without most of us ever hearing about it, and that would make such abuses easier and more frequent.

Still, most of us think that there should be some limits on freedom of the press. In this century, as technologies like wiretapping and videotaping have advanced, we have become increasingly sensitive to people’s rights to privacy. For example, reports in the media wreaked havoc on Richard Jewell’s life when they reported he was a suspect in the Olympic Park Bombing (it turns out he was a hero who saved countless lives). Many of us also remember the role the paparazzi played in Princess Diana’s death. In recent years we have also seen a transition from publishing that names of sexual assault victims to withholding them. The question of how to balance freedom of expression with rights to privacy is consistently in flux as societal values change.

Most of us think there should also be other limits to freedom of expression. People tend to favor laws against libel and slander, child pornography, and publishing manuals explaining how to construct nuclear weapons. Freedom of the press can also conflict with a right to a fair trial. If we are constantly hearing about a terrible crime, it can make it much more difficult for the defendant to receive a fair trial. But as debates over censorship of the internet show, balancing such considerations is never easy. Most of us also think that everyone should have the opportunity at a decent life. But America is built on layers of systemic injustice. We don’t start on an equal playing field and as a result, action needs to be taken to balance things out (in the form of school lunches, public education, universal healthcare, etc.). The only way to do this is by the redistribution of money. As noted previously, people don’t like to pay taxes, but a dislike of taxes is in tension with the belief that America offers everyone a chance at success.

Finally, community values can conflict with other fundamental values. Laws against sex work and selling drugs place restrictions on the rights of adults to engage in free business transactions, and censorship laws restrict freedom of expression.

Discussion Topic

Tom is trapped in a cave with a very hungry and sick child that will die if she doesn’t eat soon. They both know that they will be rescued in a matter of hours, but the child will probably starve to death before that happens. Tom has several egg salad sandwiches that will spoil if they aren’t eaten in the next couple of hours. He eats a sandwich and a half then, full, tosses the rest into a deep lake rather than giving one to the hungry child.

1. Is his action wrong?
2. Why or why not (what principles might lie behind our judgments about whether it is wrong or not)?

Now suppose that someone proposes the following argument:

Most of us are in a situation that is very like Tom’s. We could, at minimal cost to ourselves, do things that would greatly improve the lot of starving people in various places. Indeed, even just the things we waste, or the money we spend on things we don’t need, could do a lot to help people who are really suffering, through no fault of their own. So, we are really no better than Tom.

3. Your task is to evaluate this argument.
   1. The argument turns on an analogy. Just what is the analogy (what two things are said to be analogous)?
   2. What relevant similarities are there between the two cases?
   3. What irrelevant similarities are there between the two cases?
   4. What relevant differences are there between the two cases?
   5. What irrelevant differences are there between the two cases?
   6. What principle (or principles) do you think lie behind this argument?
   7. Is this a good analogy?
   8. Could the argument be rephrased without using the analogy? What would be lost if it was?
   9. Could the story about Tom be revised in any ways that would make the analogy better?
   10. Should we have a law that requires people in Tom’s situation to help the child?