Goodness without knowledge is weak; knowledge without goodness is dangerous. We have to build a better man before we can build a better society. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing. Our purpose is not to make a living but a life--a worthy, well-rounded, useful life. Morality is not a subject; it is a life put to the test in dozens of moments.
-Paul TillichIt is important to carefully consider your values for several reasons:
Thus, self-help is not just for overcoming problems; it also involves learning to become what you truly value, achieving your greatest potential. That is why your values and strengths should be considered along with your problems. For every fault or weakness you want to lose, you have a valuable strength to gain; for every crude emotion to control, you have an opposing good feeling to experience; for every awkwardness, a helpful skill to acquire; for every denial, a truth to be found. Optimally, you will identify your problems, as in chapter 2, but also decide on lofty goals that are worthy of your life.
Are we Americans becoming more moral? Perhaps in some ways. Reportedly, more and more people are volunteering to help the poor, the sick, and the elderly. For the first 80 years of this century, US citizens have gradually paid more taxes (that is doing good!) but more recently political conservatives have been encouraging us to hate taxes. In addition, there is a lot of evidence we are backsliding morally, e.g. a few years ago 9 out of 10 defense contractors were under criminal investigation. In 1990, when tax payers were required to give the Social Security numbers for every dependent, seven million names disappeared! More evidence of backslide
Immoral behavior comes from somewhere. Our current environment is not highly moral or supportive of morality and our society doesn't seem to know what to do about these permissive conditions. About 20% of high schoolers feel a lot of peer pressure to do something wrong. About 80% of teens think schools should teach basic values; yet, 90% of them are already "satisfied" with their values (Ansley & McCleary, 1992) and probably don't want to think seriously about values. In general, many adults fail to provide good role models. Psychology Today (August, 1997) recently reported a survey showing that about half of American workers did something unethical at work this year--padding the expense account, stealing property, lying about what they did or did not do, using sick days inappropriately, etc.
Even at the highest levels, half of the top executives admit they are willing to "fudge" figures to look good. More than that, a whopping 75% of MBA students say they would be willing to distort the facts to make company profits look higher. This lack of moral restraint, according to Secretan (1998), is epidemic in the workplace. He says we can change that. Buford & Whalin (1997) take a different approach, namely, change your goals in mid-life from success to significance. Still others suggest simplifying your life by doing what really matters (Aumiller, 1995).
In any case, all of us face temptations frequently to be dishonest and almost all of us could improve our moral behavior in some way. Avoiding being immoral is a very worthy endeavor; however, it is important to realize the immense gap from being "just barely on the side of the law," i.e. on the edge between moral and immoral, to being highly ethical and noble. We can't all be like Mother Teresa or Albert Schweitzer, but we can recognize the highest levels of ethics humans are capable of achieving. It must, in some cases, require a long and hard struggle to get there. Examples: the parents who sacrifice greatly so their children can have advantages they didn't have. The merchant who works hard 12-hour days to be sure his/her customers are given the best possible service, not just to make money. The soldier who gives his leg, his sight, or his life to protect others. The caring person who takes a needy child to raise. The person who undergoes great personal loses in order to right a wrong or to fight for a worthy cause.
It is a giant leap from deciding to tell the truth on your resume about your grades or work experience to devoting your life to a civil rights cause, fighting on the side of the oppressed against an abusive authority, opposing daily the wanton destruction of the earth, etc., etc. It takes great self-control to transform yourself from the lowest level of just barely acceptable morality to the highest level. But who can say that we can't all do it?
It isn't just that so many wrong things are being done, it is an equal problem that so many right things are not being done. There are facts we can't deny (and remain moral), such as one billion people are illiterate (and it is estimated that could be corrected with 7 billion dollars, a small part of our federal budget). Likewise, 841 million people, one out of every five, are hungry (and we have surplus food). The median income of black families is lower than the income of 92% of white families. About 45% of Americans regularly attend church (36% think God has actually spoken to them), but Americans give less than 2% of their income to charity. So, don't think the world is fair and that most social problems are being taken care of adequately.
The last quote helps us see that morality, i.e. being a good person, is important for our own well being as well as for the good of others. Several noted writers have recently tried to convince us that being good pays off. The better books are Sherwin (1998), Twerski (1997) and Kushner (1996), all three Rabbis. Gough (1997) has a book that is perhaps more appropriate for teenagers and apparently is well received by them. Their point is that being good is part of being successful--having self-esteem as well as being a good worker, good parent, and kind/grateful/forgiving towards others.
There is little research about which values yield the greatest good for the greatest number of people or about how to change one's own values or about how to live in accordance with one's basic values. Few candles have been lit here, thus far.
Most of us have little help in developing a philosophy of life. Values tend to be picked out in a haphazard, piece-meal fashion from friends, parents, the media, teachers, popular heroes, and clergy in that order (Behavior Today, Feb., 1981, p. 8); therefore, values are frequently contradictory and not logically connected with how we actually behave. For example, we accept the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) but at the same time we struggle for money and "the good life" for ourselves without much consideration of the needs of others. We say we value honesty but cheat on our exams (up to 67%), on our income taxes (38%), and deceive our best friend (33%). We claim to value being understanding and forgiving but sometimes become nasty and revengeful. We supposedly value hard work but procrastinate. We seek a devoted partner but are unfaithful (45%), etc., etc. (Psychology Today, Nov. 1981, pp 34-50). There are many moral decisions made by each of us every day and always new moral dilemmas to resolve, mostly on our own without help.
Perhaps because many people equate values and religion (yet, I hope it is obvious to you that a person can have very high values--honesty, loving, giving--without having any religious beliefs in God or salvation at all), a discussion of our values may be considered an invasion of our privacy and our personal religious beliefs. Asking a person why he/she holds a particular moral opinion is encroaching on sacred ground reserved exclusively for "persons of the cloth" and God. The place inside where we store our values and our conscience is a scary place to which we invite few people, resenting those who intrude and question our values or preach to us. Perhaps, values are a touchy topic because our own guilty conscience, when aroused, can hurt us. It is true that many people loosely "expect" their religion to keep them moral, but, on the other hand, insist that religion shouldn't get too deeply involved in their "private" behavior or challenge their rationalizations for selfish, immoral behavior.
Baumeister contends that humans, pushed by these four needs and aided by an enormously imaginative brain, have for thousands of years created beliefs (myths) in a "higher power" which will protect and provide for us, make sense of natural events, and give purpose or meaning to our lives. That is, human needs and fears motivated the development of religions which embodied and reinforced our values. Moreover, he says that many of the promises religions have made, such as lasting marriages (with the male in charge), help avoiding or handling misfortunes, the answering of prayers, eternal salvation, etc. are very comforting ideas but pretty much illusory. He and many other scholars (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, & Tipton, 1985; Lasch, 1984) think the decline of explicit moral teachings by the church in the last 50 to 75 years has left individuals with a "values gap," without a moral base on which to build a philosophy of life.
Since a complete set of values is no longer handed down to us by family, culture, or church, we now must construct our own value system (or avoid the task). Unfortunately, all of us, especially the young, are rather unprepared for this difficult and important task. Without guidance, we usually adopt just bits and pieces of values and goals from others, then to a large extent we use personal satisfaction as our guiding light: having fun, looking good, loving, working, and being successful and happy. Those aren't bad values but, surely, they aren't humans' noblest efforts either.
There is evidence that religions gradually incorporate a society's morals and ambitions into what is proclaimed to be God's will (rather than correcting society's wicked ways). Thus, a pacifist religion--"turn the other cheek"--founded by the "Prince of Peace" has repeatedly supported religious crusades, wars for economic gain, and "just wars" wanted by leaders or the people. Even though it appears that religions did not "invent" good morals, religions remain very strong, far from dead. In fact, for believers, religion amply satisfies the four powerful needs for meaning, e.g. purpose, directing many lives and promising salvation and less fear; values, telling us what is right and wrong; efficacy, offering the power of prayer and some feeling of control over life and death, and self-worth, including feeling superior to others and being loved, favored, and chosen by God. Religion helps people handle life's misfortunes and our enormous fear of death. For a brilliant analysis of religion's crucial role in denying death, read Becker (1974). Religion also provides a sense of belonging and a social support system. The payoffs of religion are so fantastic that if you believe in a religion, it is extremely threatening to even question it, let alone give up its alleged advantages. What ever our religion we should never blame God or the devil for our bad behavior.
God is a delicate issue because some people need religion but others do not. The realist must ask: Did an omnipotent God create man or did insecure, frightened people create Gods? Most people might give a knee-jerk answer but thoughtful consideration of this question takes months or years. How you answer that question will influence your behavior somewhat, particularly in terms of church attendance, reliance on prayer, contributions to church activities and buildings, and perhaps other ways. But your basic value system may not change at all: People are just as honest, caring, gentle, good, etc. when they no longer believe in God as when they did. Religion is not the only basis for being considerate of others, being faithful, unprejudiced, and living in harmony. These values are simply reasonable and beneficial. With or without a religion, we all have the same four needs to meet and most of the same moral choices to make. We can find meaning for our lives without religion. We won't all arrive at the same meaning, but we can, with effort, all be good and do good in our own way.
However, because belief in a God is an emotional matter, not a rational process, it is not an issue we can decide by just "using our head." It is a conflict within each of us between the solace of total faith vs. the satisfaction of facing reality. In our culture, we can't openly debate the existence of God with most people; it is too emotional an issue. Many people can't even privately consider the pros and cons of believing in God; doubts are thought to offend God. Therefore, if religion and God are deeply established parts of your life's meaning, count your blessings but be tolerant of people who chose a slightly different life path. They are not evil.
On the other hand, if your thoughts lead you to question God's existence, do not despair but ask yourself: what are the implications for how I would live my life? Among many other things, if God isn't ruling the world, seeing that justice is done, taking care of needy people, guiding our priests and leaders, answering prayers, rewarding the good, etc., then each of us shoulders more of the responsibility for those things. In short, without God, the meaning of life may shift slightly but our lives could become more meaningful because without an omnipotent God each individual must assume more responsibility for what happens. Therefore, the development of your own philosophy of life is even more important because only humans can learn to save the environment, live in peace, love one another, help the poor and disadvantaged, help ourselves, etc. It will not be easy to do all that we morally should.