Postmodern Speaking. Values
Consider this topic in the style of discursive Kung Fu. And let's start right from the deconstruction.
The very concept of "values"Did not always exist. This is a product of the 20th century. Previously, it was only a minor auxiliary word, and not a whole category. Philosophy has always considered a part of the worldview of a person and society, associated with beliefs, with moral principles, with priorities. And adjectives were used to compare priorities: more, more, more valuable. And derived nouns from them: size, value,value.
- Which of the moral principles has the mainvaluefor the true son of our people: loyalty to the emperor or the faith of the ancestors?
But in the postmodern one of the archers on the wall captured the entire citadel, now "values»Became an independent category and ousted former meanings. Surely this is due to the sacred meaning, which in Protestant ethics is attached to the notion of "values».
But it's never too late to remember the meaning.If you are told about values, ask for clarification:
- What are you talking about at all? About material values? About morals? About desires, ambitions, claims?
Values is a very aggressive word.. And not only by the fact that it suppresses many meanings. It is in itself a positive characteristic that excludes interpretation. If we isolate any specifics from this pseudo-generality, then it turns out that it is completely discussed. And each individual principle can be assessed, it is possible to discuss this assessment. But for values it is forbidden, since they are called valuable in advance.
Therefore, after being forced to call any particular opponent as an opponent, deny her belonging to the values:
- Ah, are you talking about democratic principles? So these are no values. These are only methods that cannot be a priori useful and applicable in all cases. The value, uselessness, or harmfulness of these principles in our case should first be determined.
Another aggression in the word "values" is in its multiplicity. You are forced to swear allegiance to the black box, in which lies what is unknown. And there at any moment they may slip something else. You will try to object - from there they will extract an indisputable rattle:
- So you are against racial equality ???
- No, you, I'm for! For the values!
And you agreed to fight peanut butter and Fidel Castro at the same time.
Require to announce the entire list.
In the "values" there is inviolability. They pull onto themselves the skins of captured principles and moral principles. You would not like to compromise on principles or to abandon accepted morality? Therefore, you should take values forever, make them the basis of your being, earnestly serve them, fight for them, kill for them.
But in fact, this is only a system of priorities. Yes, moral principles are included there, but along with quite selfish interests and other things. Priorities always change. And objectively - along with the fluctuations of social indices, and manipulative.
Break this fake granite, ask:
- How long have values become exactly like that? How will they change in a couple of weeks? No, then I do not subscribe.
"Values" are trying to grab you with a lasso. They take an adjective and throw it at you: “Our values”.You can chop the lasso with a blade:
- Your values? And such "you"? Label yourself please.
Or intercept the rope and pull sharply at yourself:
“You said ours.”If these are my values, then their set should be determined by consensus between you and me personally. What do you specifically mean? Let's discuss the points as equal parties.
The same can be applied if you are American, and they throw at you"American values". Refusal to decrypt: "This is well known to all Americans," means a black box, see above.
Attempt to apply to you“Human values" or"Values of all normal people"react as tough as possible - blame fascism.
- You declare a monopoly on the definition of "universal" values and try to impose them on me. So you consider me a subhuman. You place in Nuremberg on the gallows.
Not bad, if the opponent, having passed such a blow, will float and talk about “Western” values or about the values of “developed” countries. Here it is necessary to finish.
- And what right do you have to impose on me the value system of white Anglo-Saxons or black lesbians? I have my own, much better. And if you are a Nazi, and forcing me to accept priorities alien to me, then these are your priorities Nazi too?
"Values" are prone to universalism.There is a delicate moment. This system of priorities in society can include in its composition and disseminated ideas - for example, religious, and having clear boundaries. If your tribe lives by stealing livestock from its neighbors, then why would you want them to behave in the same way?
Values are not universal. They are determined by societies, by epochs, by religions, by groups, even by individuals. But valuesproneto universality. This is an expansion tool. A person tries to impose his values on another. One group is another, society is society. And it is especially convenient if you only formally adhere to your values, and subordinate them seriously.
In all cases, we must remember thatvalues are weapons of attack or defense. Even if you are offered to defend your own values from external aggression, remember that this may also be an attempt to aggression. Always subject this discursive weapon to deconstruction, see what is inside. Where is the moral, where are the interests, and whose are they.
Ps. I’ll add a comment from the discussion to the text to make it more convincing:
it’s obvious that the author’s “values” meant constructs,developed specifically for globalization in favor of the liberals, as a means of pushing religious precepts and national cultural norms. For your information, neither the UN Charter (1945), nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) even just the word "value" exists. Not a single thing. Although the quotes of famous figures on this topic.
Moreover, “universal values”, as a combat discourse, is generally a remake, the beginning of which can be counted from 2003 (read, interestingly, in Germany, in which the first Global Ethics Foundation opened in 1995). I can not give a quote from there:
It’s not a problem. them.
"But if it’s wrong to brand a particular faith or set of values because of the actions / words of some adherents, then it should be wrong and abandon the idea that certain values are universal, simply because some human beings do not seem to share them . " UN Secretary General, for a moment.