Which ones? Is there a line you wouldn't cross? Is there a line that would be easier to cross than others?
Would you sacrifice more of your values/morals if it ensured a more prosperous life for your family? Less if it was just for you?
Does the legality of those morals change how tempted you would be to give up those values? ie: if the act were against your values but legal would you find it easier to do than an illegal act?
Define core values. I don't mean that as a question for this context, but what do core values relate to in your life, because generally, I can't think of any values that are succinct and focused enough in anyone's life that haven't changed over time, and the ones that are broader are too broad such that if I make an action that violates that value, my human mind will cleanly warp that action to be in line with that value, and honestly believe it. It's simply what humans do. More importantly, for all the hubskiers over the age of, say, 20, think of something you considered a core value you had when you were 16. Now think if that has changed since then, even a little; core values aren't supposed to change at all, so minor shifts are really glacial movements--an inch or two, but the movement of a continent is noteworthy. I don't think it's possible to not change, and I'm glad for that. Consistency of believes means complacency, means entrenchment, means stagnation, means death-- of learning, of understanding, of opening to new ideas. A question like this that always comes up in my circle as an experiment of this: Who's going to answer 'yes' to that question that is passionate about music? But then, who that isn't passionate about music would say yes to that? Therefore, many times in the past, people passionate about music have said yes to that. We all agree it's bad, that selling yourself to a corporation and making disingenuous pieces degrades the value of something beautiful and creates a commodification of art that shouldn't be in place in that form (i.e. supporting an entity for money instead of an artist for sustenance.) But that fails to evaluate a lot of situations and reeks of western, upper-class privilege. No poor person on the street is going to turn down billions of dollars because they 'care about music'. And why not attempt to make something better of the industry, by having that avenue and attempting to create something good out of something you oppose? Like that glacial shift I mentioned above: at one point when this first came up when I was 16, I hated pop music. That's mostly because of top 40 radio, which I still despise every bit of, but over time I found things that fit that genre and made something great out of it. Bjork's work is pure sound art, through and through, and Sufjan Stevens Age of Adz created a veritable symphony by mixing modern and old techniques that's a hallmark of music of this century, no doubt. By definition, does that mean I violated, or at the very least, Sufjan violated his core values by taking something so foul and making good of it? Perhaps that's moral relativism, but fuck if I know of a better form of advancement of man. There's always been speculation that Lincoln was a racist and there was documented fact that Wilson was sexist, but they freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote because, while they opposed it and didn't agree with it, they were able to recognize that it didn't matter, that they were wrong, or that there was more good to come from going against their core values. Those are grand people that should be praised, cynicism and doubts and values be damned. There are greater things to be done.Would you make bad music intentionally to make money or fame?
I agree that core values change over time but generally speaking, and as an example, most people want to live a life where they do not intentionally hurt other people. That is a core value of mine that I don't forsee changing. Some people chose to live vegan because their core values extend a bit further and view animals as I view people. Based on that example, I would say that I would have a hard time working for a company who's sole business was to go out and murder people. I don't think any amount of money or blame shifting or number of hours or anything they could give me would overrule my core value of "not hurting people." But at what point do the ambiguity or distance from "not hurting people" and the attainment of financial prosperity or emotional prosperity for myself or my family cross paths? At what point do I choose that prosperity over my core value of not hurting people? The same can be said of your music example. No one is intentionally going to volunteer to make bad music until you put some solid numbers/promises in front of them. You can have a million dollars in a years. Will you make bad music then? You can live happily ever after surrounded by great friends and family. Would you make bad music then? I would, absolutely. (note: I would make bad music for much less simply because I don't have the ability to make music, let alone good music. :P). So, I'm going to shift it to something I am semi-knowledgable/passionate about: design. This talk is fresh in my mind in which he brings up a story of a girl who was forced out of the closet by a bad design choice Facebook made. Basically, she didn't come out to her family. Facebook changed how they managed groups. Her family saw she was part of a LGBT group. Her family wasn't happy and her father disowned her. So back to the question at hand. Would I ever drop my core value of not hurting people by designing something badly? I know that pushing that design has the potential to hurt people, which goes against my core values. However, can the promise of prosperity (in this case prosperity would be: continuing my design career, continuing to work for facebook, etc) overrule my core value? Can I detached enough from the decision making process that I can shift the blame and live happily even though I violated my core value? Or do I decide to not push the design and get fired and attempt to find a new job with a reputation for saying no potentially following me? This is a fabulous point. However, most of us are selfish. Which is what makes thinking about this so interesting. There are so many factors in play. Furthermore, politics is infinitely interesting and puts core values + actions on center stage. Many politicians make decisions that go against their core values (their own or their stated core values) in order to maintain their position. They justify this by telling themselves "If I don't do X, I won't be reellected, and I won't ever have the chance to do good." I would argue that they are dropping their core values for prosperity. Prosperity being the ability to stay in power. The justification of "I'll make it up and do good in the future" is moot. Another political example is Liz Cheney and her stated opposition of gay marriage. Problem is, she has a lesbian sister. And she loves her sister (who is married) but is simultaneously against gay marriage. How's that for a core values vs actions bullshit? Prosperity in her case is getting elected somewhere. What's her core value? I imagine she loves and wants the best for her sister but she is willing to sacrifice that value for the potential election. note: I don't actually know if this happens a lot in politics, but I did watch House of Cards and this happens. Seems plausible.Define core values.
They were able to recognize that it didn't matter, that they were wrong, or that there was more good to come from going against their core values. Those are grand people that should be praised, cynicism and doubts and values be damned. There are greater things to be done.
You make good points, but even something like this: something so basic that all people can agree on, I can't say I can abide by. One of the people I care about more than anyone else was held in captivity and raped repeatedly for months when she was 18 by her much older boyfriend. I am one of the few things keeping her from complete desolation. She can't stop putting massive gashes into her body. And you know, for all that I stand against, I know for a fact that I would attempt to remove his throat with my hands. I won't even go to the same country as his in my lifetime because of it. Perhaps that's because of something selfish, or perhaps I'm warping my values to believe I'm doing good, or perhaps it truly is doing something for the betterment of this already shitty world against my beliefs, or maybe that belief is wrong, but there are things that exist outside values, exceptions to rules. I think enough exist to make any value to weak to stand.most people want to live a life where they do not intentionally hurt other people. That is a core value of mine that I don't forsee changing.
The above reply comes close to nailing it, I think. What appears at face value to be a moral question is really more of a linguistic problem. Ignoring the sort of cost-benefit analysis that you get into with the extreme cases (e.i. "Would you commit the tiniest breach of values for an enormous payoff?") look at what happens if someone just gives a simple solid "yes". Say I claim that honesty is one of my core values, but also say "sure, for $20 I'll tell a small lie and for 200k/yr I'll lie for a living." If I could make such a claim, in what conceivable sense could honesty be my core value? If you can override a value that easily, then it wasn't a substancial part of your make-up in the first place. It was only an expedient pretense, put on either to make some part of the world like you, or to make you like yourself. If you answer a solid "no" I think it is fair to say that you have not been tested by all circumstances and are probably also just reaffirming your own image. Put me in Auschwitz and give me the opportunity to save my hide (the barest measure of material success) by stealing some other poor schmuck's ration of gruel. Then, and only then, can I give a meaningful answer to the question. Right now, I haven't the slightest idea.
I think 16 year old me would be happy to know that I still make music, helped create a cool online site and make podcasts and stuff. But I think 16 year old me wouldn't be thrilled about what I do for a living. But as far as "core values" go, mine remain intact. They're not for sale.More importantly, for all the hubskiers over the age of, say, 20, think of something you considered a core value you had when you were 16. Now think if that has changed since then, even a little; core values aren't supposed to change at all, so minor shifts are really glacial movements--an inch or two, but the movement of a continent is noteworthy.
-Good question. I often wonder what 16 year old me would think of what I'm doing with my life. It's hard to say, really. It shouldn't be hard to say, that was me, right? But I can distinctly recall that I had a very hard-core, "I'll never sell-out" mentality. The problem is, I don't think I ever had a clear definition of what "selling out" meant. Also, I had NO IDEA about so many things economically.
Google defines "prosperous" as: So I'll roll with that definition. Which values are you talking about specifically? I've mentioned this on a few other comments, but I'm kind of struggling right now with motivation and goals. And I guess my "core values" would be centered on obtaining or achieving those goals. The easiest route would be to gain material wealth. Which has been my aim for a while. But if I had to give up what I truly wanted just to "flourish financially" then the answer is no. Before I probably would've said yes, but past me is an idiot. I've already confirmed that by now. I've already crossed a few legal boundaries, so that obviously doesn't stop me. My views never really lined up with the law anyway. Of course, following the law is still important in my goals, so I follow them. Overall, this question is incredibly vague. If there were a 100% chance to follow me dreams (whatever they may be) with a 0% fail chance, then I would do it. Material wealth doesn't play into that at all. Well, it does to a point (studies say $75k/year is enough).successful in material terms; flourishing financially.
Prosperous enough to make you think about sacrificing your values. Lol. I don't know. It's a pretty vague question because everyone's definitions differ. Make something up and run with it.
Nah. My greatest hope is to live life with minimal suffering and to alleviate the suffering of others. I don't care for prosperity so much. I don't know about meanings of life or all that, but this seems like time tested wisdom: http://youtu.be/xERitvFYpAk Don't suffer anything at all; Life exists only a short while And time demands its toll. I'd like to follow that kind of life. As for your other questions, I do care about my family quite a bit, but I don't wanna go Walter White for my family. And for myself, well, above. Legalities... Not really. I get guilty when I try to sell something to someone for, say, $100 when I paid only $3 for it.While you live, shine
A bit off topic & "spoilery" but remember that Walter White admitted he did everything for himself, not his family. He never compromised his own core values of pride etc.. I think Walter White is actually an example of the above question inverted, he protected his family by pursuing his own core values at their expense.
That's an interesting way to take it. I am still thinking about Breaking Bad, what it meant, and what I took out of it, and I'll probably change my views on it, so I won't be able to follow that discussion up as well as I would want to. I think for the moment Breaking Bad is a show about a person who started with good intentions and then have them run amok, but as Oscar Wilde says: The way you see it is very interesting and is like what some people say when they say that Heisenberg was always Walter White and vice versa, from the very first episode. The inverted question of yours is also interesting to ponder over, as we all like to think our core values are right when that example shows that changing ones core values would have been better off for everyone. Interesting stuff indeed.Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself
Recently, in my experiences, people who actively limit/don't participate in the perception of prosperity being tied to these "western" (or w.e) values carve paths that lead to their own interpretations. I like to work at being one of those people. So I guess my answer is no, but its a challenge.
I think everyone has their own perception of "prosperity" which is why I phrased in like that. For some, a better paying job might be defined as prosperity and therefore the question could be asked: "Would you accept a job with a nice financial/status raise even if it required you to do work that you found to be against your core values?" For others, a more prosperous life would be spending twice as much time with family. "Would you accept a job with the same pay/status where you would only be in the office 30hrs/week even if it required you to do work that your found to be against your core values?" I've been thinking about it and I think a lot of my personal stance ends up at really horrible questions: 1. Can I shift the blame enough off myself to still be okay with my life? ie: if I'm just a girl doing my job, part of a team, not actually making decisions, I'm not really responsible, right? For $50k? No. For $100k? For a job I only had to work 3 months of the year? Hm...is there a line? 2. If I get caught, will I be in a shit situation / jail? Will it ever cause others to look down on me? 3. Who suffers at my hands? (ties back to number one - how much "my hands" are truly involved) - is it the environment? People I know? Future generations? Other companies? Enemies? Etc. Does that affect the invisible line of when I would sacrifice values? That's when my thought circles back around to other things that I personally define as "prosperous" and it begins again. Seriously, I feel icky thinking about this.