The Good Project Core Concepts: Values

by Lynn Barendsen 

Values are principles or beliefs that we find important, that can guide us in our attitudes, and can influence our actions and our decision-making. They help to direct us, shape who we are and how we interact with the world around us, and do so across many areas of our personal and professional lives. Ask yourself: 

• What are your personal beliefs? 

• Do they support you in your work, or do they create obstacles for you? 

• Have your values contributed to or hindered your accomplishments?

• Do you feel that your values are the same as or different from those of your colleagues?

• Think about times in your life when you were happy, most proud or fulfilled. What were you doing, and what values might have contributed to you feeling this way? 

Sometimes, when we’ve asked young people “What do you value?”, they’ve told us about particular possessions or family members; in fact, we’re actually asking instead about the personal beliefs that they hold most dear. So, if an individual were to mention “a laptop” as a “value,” we might press a bit and ask what that laptop makes possible: is it efficiency in work, enjoyment, independence? If someone were to mention a particular family member (“I value my mom”) we might ask instead what about that relationship is most valued. Are there particular characteristics about their mother (e.g. her humor, her curiosity, her courage) that are most valued, or is it the close and loving relationship they share? In other words, when we discuss “values,” we’re not referring to possessions or particular individuals, but rather concepts. Notably, while values drive peoples’ goals and serve as “guiding principles” in peoples’ lives, character strengths and virtues are how people express and pursue moral values via their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Values help motivate us to have experiences that will deepen our character strengths and virtues (Crossan et al., 2013; Lavy & Benish-Weisman, 2021).  

Values are formed by a variety of influences and experiences, including but not limited to family, culture, religion, education, other personal experiences, and more. ;Although many of the values people tend to hold remain stable as time passes, many also evolve or shift slightly with time, or in different contexts. While we are still developing our beliefs and opinions (for example, in youth), values are more likely to shift slightly. Several studies nonetheless point to the stability of values, even in younger years, including an 8-year longitudinal study of young adults (Vecchione et al., 2016). Additionally, an extensive review of values research argues that values formed early in life remain reliably steady in future years (Sagiv and Schwarz, 2022). 

Knowing what we value most and least in our personal and work lives—being aware of our values—makes it easier to react when opportunities arise and when conflicts happen. And yet, taking the time to pause and consider our values is the exception rather than the norm. On The Good Project, we believe the process of reflection is a key component of “good work,” and the consideration of our values is especially important. The value sort exercise is a way to reflect about what is most and least important to us personally and may also offer a great starting point for conversations amongst students, family members, or colleagues. 

Interestingly, the value sort is far and away our most popular resource on our website: at this writing, over 107,000 people have completed the online version of this activity. What is it that most people value? The top five values selected are: 1) personal growth and learning; 2) honesty and integrity; 3) rewarding and supportive relationships; 4) creating balance in one’s life; and 5) understanding, helping and serving others. It is important to note that the sample of individuals using this tool is not necessarily representative of the general public; they have of course found this resource because they are interested in the concept of “good work.” Nonetheless, some of these values remain consistent with values selected as most important during our original good work study of professionals in the mid 1990s, including honesty and integrity and rewarding and supportive relationships. 

Whereas the value sort enables conversation about individual values (what we ourselves value), of course none of us lives in a vacuum, and it’s important to also consider how our values may differ from those around us, whether they be family members, work colleagues, or members of other communities to which we belong. When our values differ from those around us, we may find ourselves in conflict with colleagues or supervisors, family or friends. In other writing we outlined the key good work concept of alignment (when the various stakeholders in a particular profession share goals) and misalignment (when their goals are in conflict). We may also be aligned or misaligned in terms of values; clearly, what we value in work (and in life) impacts our goals. For example: someone who values creating balance may seek a professional position that enables clear boundary-setting; someone who values independence may look for work that offers opportunities for autonomy. 

Some values are readily connected to the framework of the three Es of excellence, ethics and engagement. Excellent, or high quality work, might be accomplished by an individual with a strong work ethic, or someone who is diligent. Ethical work is often associated with honesty and integrity. Someone who values gaining knowledge would be engaged in work that allows them to continually learn.  

And yet, the relationship between values and good work is not as straightforward as it might seem. Imagine two co-workers tasked with completing a shared project; one values curiosity, the other diligence. It’s not difficult to envision a conflict of interest, even if both were determined to do “good work.” This is one example of how our values may come into conflict with the values of others. There is not necessarily one “right” answer in this situation; however, if these two colleagues were able to realize why they were in conflict with one another, resolving the conflict might be a bit easier. 

Values are one frame to approach ethical dilemmas—we have developed additional frames useful in these circumstances, including responsibility, roles and alignment. Of course, our value sort is not the only readily available resource to help individuals consider what’s most important to them and help them to navigate their decision-making process. See, for example, the Valued Living Questionnaire, The 4 Values Framework, or Schwartz’s Theory of Values. There are also more historical considerations (see, for example, Benjamin Franklin’s virtues), as well as numerous examples of important non-Western perspectives (such as the Japanese concept of Ikigai). 

When we share values with those around us, our communities tend to be more harmonious. We should be mindful, however, of the potential for creating “echo chambers” when we work (or live) without a diversity of perspectives. Although it may be more straightforward to work alongside colleagues who share our values, it is important to seek out those who offer alternative viewpoints. When individuals feel that their values are not shared by the majority, they often feel excluded and lack a sense of belonging. An inclusive workplace - indeed, any inclusive community - seeks out and honors multiple points of view. Our values may link us to our cultural heritage, give us a sense of purpose, guide our decision-making and more. Whether or not we realize their influence, our values play a significant role in defining us as individuals, as members of our communities, and as part of the wider world.  

Resources

Blogs: 

Changing Values in the Pandemic

Family Ties and Differing Values

A Consideration of Free Speech and the Role of Values

Value Sort Professional Development video

Activities:

The Value Sort Tool

Identifying Mission (shared values)

Values in the Pandemic: Have They Shifted, and if so, How?

by Lynn Barendsen

What do we value, and how do we spend our time?  Both are key topics on the Good Project; it’s my hunch that responses to both questions have been considerably impacted by the pandemic.  In what follows, I review some research evidence and share my own reflections.

In my analysis, perhaps not surprisingly, values HAVE shifted. Perhaps more puzzling is the nature of the relationship between our values and how we occupy ourselves.  As we all know, the past two years have seen a remarkable change in our daily activities as we’ve adjusted (and readjusted, and then readjusted again) to the realities of life during a pandemic. So: have our values evolved because our activities have changed, or have we changed our activities because of what we value?

How we spend our time is clearly related to what we value.  Perhaps we do what we do because of what we value, or alternatively, perhaps we recognize our values—and whether or not they are being honored-- because of how we’ve been spending our time.  As this (link here) New York Times article points out, during the pandemic, individuals spent far more time alone, or only with close family members.  For some, this may mean a renewed appreciation of solitude (what they have); for others it may mean a recognition of the value of spending time with other family and friends (what they can’t have).

Two studies help to unpack these issues a bit more. A study (link here) of over 1000 Australians, ranging in age from 18-75, was conducted over several years (both pre and post pandemic);  the study revealed two sets of contact post pandemic (one at the beginning, and one 8-9 months later).    Using Shalom Schwartz’s (link here) categorization of values, the authors cite four sets of values: conservation values, openness to change values, self-transcendence values and self-enhancement values.  Three of the four categories (all but self-enhancement values) changed during the pandemic.  Conservation values (keeping safe, preserving order, stability and tradition) all became more important at the beginning of the pandemic, and as time passed, remained consistent at their new level.  Perhaps in this case, the actions related to “staying safe” and positive results reinforced the importance of the value of stability.

Openness to change values (independence, seeking adventure, creativity, change) decreased at the beginning of the pandemic, but later, increased.  At the beginning of the pandemic, individuals had less opportunity for adventure, certainly outside their homes; as time went on, perhaps adventure and creativity became increasingly important as individuals sought alternative modes of entertainment.  

Self-transcendence values (caring for others and for the world) were initially stable, but later decreased.  The authors suggest that perhaps as a result of being so focused on self-preservation, individuals had little capacity left for empathy. Importantly, many countries were more severely impacted by the pandemic than Australia, so it’s crucial to consider alternative, more extensive studies. 

Another study (link here) was conducted by the research agency Glocalities. Investigators interviewed 8,761 individuals in 24 countries, 9 months apart, at the beginning and end of 2020. The study sought to understand how the pandemic impacted individuals’ beliefs and values.

Not surprisingly, individuals increasingly value health and precautions, or taking care. As freedoms became more limited (i.e., as a result of lockdowns), they became more valued.  Additionally, a heightened awareness of economic disparities has led to increased calls for equity. The report concludes that although individuals are increasingly pessimistic and worried, they are simultaneously revisiting their values and thinking more about others besides themselves.  Interestingly, this contradicts the Australian study (which found a decrease in caring for others and the world). 

These are just a few examples of what will likely become an ongoing investigation into the impact of these past two years on individual values.  Clearly there are ambiguities that need to be resolved. Whether these initial trends are short or long term, whether they hold true across racial, cultural, socio-economic and other differences, is still to be determined.  But these are important questions, and we will continue to look for any emerging patterns.

Closer to home, over the course of the pandemic, our GP Team has had many conversations with colleagues (and ourselves) about values.  We consider ourselves fortunate. Although each of us have been impacted both personally and professionally by the pandemic, unlike many around the world, we have been able to keep working and able to do so from the safety of our homes. Of course there have been challenges (juggling parenting responsibilities with work responsibilities, for example), but for the most part, we have all appreciated supportive colleagues and work that feels important and timely. 

Additionally, we’ve remarked upon the fact that ethical dilemmas (a core component of Good Project resources) are in abundance these days. Constantly struggling with the best decision (as it’s not always clear that there’s one “right” answer) is important and exhausting. Often it comes down to values, and what we value most.  Or, as Michael Rozier explains, “our choices, individually and collectively, reveal who we are and who we want to be.”  In an article (link here) written relatively early during the pandemic (May 2020), this scholar asserts that the pandemic offers an opportunity to embrace previously undervalued virtues such as self-sacrifice and prudence.

Curious to consider whether – and, if so, how-- our own values have shifted over the past two years, four of us recently revisited the value sort (link here). Interestingly, three of us rated “creating balance in one’s life” and “rewarding and supportive relationships” in our top four values.  Three of us also had either “understanding, helping, serving others” or “social concerns, pursuing the common good” as one of our top 4.

I don’t want to speak for others, but for me the exercise brought about some useful realizations. I recognized that balance feels more important than it has before because the line between my personal and professional lives feels more blurred. For the bulk of the past few years, both my husband and I have been working from home, and for some of that time, our two college-aged sons were also working at home. We tried hard, for example, to make weekends feel different from the week and to establish boundaries.  Now that our sons have returned to college and it’s just the two of us, it’s easier to just keep working well into the evening, and balance becomes increasingly important. This was exacerbated during the lockdown when our usual exercise (regular martial arts practice at our dojo) was impossible. I recognize that I value balance more because I’ve missed it, and because I realize how essential it is to my peace of mind.

Additionally, both the pandemic and our current fraught political climate have made me more aware than ever of economic disparities. Financial status has had a major impact on how individuals experience the pandemic, and economic divides - previously substantial - have only increased. I feel more responsibility than I ever have before: to do work that’s important, to think about my neighbors, to be careful and responsible in my actions.  The impact of everything we do, of all our actions, feels real, and I’m constantly examining my decision making.  This is why “understanding and helping others” and “honesty and integrity” are in my top four. 

To return then to one of my initial questions: have my values shaped how I spend my time, or is it the other way around?  I’ll hedge and say it depends. There are core values that will always be a part of how I approach the world - “rewarding and supportive relationships” come to mind. No matter what the current climate, these will always be something I place high on my list of values. But other values may shift in and out of the top four depending on events. The momentary pause to reflect is helpful and serves as a check in the midst of an otherwise uncertain time. Am I still acting in ways that are true to me?  What IS important right now?

Have a look at the value sort (link here) and our video (link here) which asks you to consider how you spend your time.  We’d love to hear if you’ve noticed any changes in your own perspective, and if not, why you think your views have remained consistent over time.

Why not donate a kidney to a stranger?

by Courtney Bither

On June 1, 2021 I donated a kidney to a stranger. Most people want to know, immediately, “Why? Why donate a kidney to a stranger?”

 The screening process for kidney donation is thorough, and there are several psychological and social screenings for non-directed (or altruistic) donors. Throughout the process, and in speaking to others about my decision, I’ve come to realize that donating a kidney, while certainly a sacrifice and a very big decision, always felt within the realm of possibility for me.

In my experience, most people who aren’t confronted with organ donation have not spent much time thinking about it. I certainly did not consider myself a candidate for organ donation until a history professor of mine shared with our class that he would be donating a kidney and asked if we had any questions about the process. This conversation prompted me to think more about organ donation: the risks, the benefits, the requirements. And I decided to submit myself as a candidate not long after.  

We return to the why: Why donate a kidney to a stranger? The answer is simple: because I wanted to. Because it made sense to me. I decided if I made it through all of the screening, I would be at such little risk for the surgery, and able to contribute so much to someone. So why not?

“Why not?” gave me much more pause than, “why?” Why not give a kidney to a stranger? Because I cannot know anything about the intended recipient, and I cannot choose to whom my kidney is donated. My kidney could go to a child, or a loving parent, or a justice-seeking teacher. Or my kidney could go to a white supremacist—a person’s whose actions I find not only questionable, but evil—a detriment to the wellbeing of others. And my kidney would extend that person’s life. 

So how, nonetheless, did I choose to go through with it?

I looked at my options: donate, or not. And I talked through my reasoning with close friends and family—people who understand me and my values, who could help me talk through what felt right for me. Talking out my concerns with each option clarified for me what I was most concerned with: doing good and doing no harm.

I realized, in self-reflection, that I would rather take a chance on doing good, even if it meant harm might result from my decision. It’s uncomfortable to think about, but it’s important to consider. In general, I tend to think that those in need should be given priority over those might take advantage of systems for those in need. I’d rather take a chance on a “good” person receiving my kidney than a bad one. And, beyond this, I can only do what is within my control—the decision to donate is within my control, not the past or future decisions my recipient makes.

Understanding my values here—to do good, to prevent harm, to fulfill what I believe my moral and social obligations are—helped me decide, with confidence, to proceed with kidney donation.

Understanding the gravity of the situation for those waiting for a kidney also helped me decide to donate my kidney: 12 people die every day waiting for a kidney transplant. In 2020 in the U.S., about 100,000 people were waiting for a kidney transplant, and only 22,817 people in the U.S. received one. Not everyone can or should donate a kidney. However, considering the manifold aspects of the issue, more people can and perhaps should think about kidney donation—and other “big solutions”—and where and how they fit in the process.

 I am very fortunate to be in a situation where I can donate a kidney: I have very supportive colleagues at work who encouraged me throughout the process; I have enough paid time off for my recovery so I won’t have to struggle financially; I live with my partner and two very supportive roommates who help with recovery while I cannot drive or make food. And for me, kidney donation never felt impossible. But for some people, it does. And that’s alright—even good. Donating one kidney involves much more than one person—each person involved in my recovery made this donation possible. Each “big decision” and “big solution” requires a team—yes, only I donated a kidney, but I couldn’t have done it alone. And what’s more, it’s something that felt right for me, with my values, it was something I wanted to do.

I must admit, at times I feel uncomfortable with the shock I hear from people questioning my choice to donate a kidney. I know people mean well—and I don’t deny, donating a kidney to a stranger is an unusual thing to do—but because donating a kidney was something I wanted to do, I don’t always understand the shock. My favorite responses have come from folks who tell me that they have family on dialysis, so they understand the gravity of the situation, or from those who appreciate that this sort of decision is brave—it certainly required courage. But it isn’t an impossibility—it was a choice I made, and I made it happily.

Everyone can have a role in making the world a better place—in doing good work—and, in my opinion, it’s a good thing that people have different roles in the process. Rather than focus on how impractical another’s role would be for you, perhaps it would be more helpful to reflect on what it is you want to do and what it is that you can do.

You might start by asking yourself, “What do I want to do to make the world a better place? What makes sense to me? And what kind of team or community do I need with me to take action?”

Perhaps will you feel inspired to look into kidney donation (link here), or maybe you’ll sign up to donate blood (link here). Or, maybe you will challenge yourself and a friend to work with an organization like Food for Free (link) or Meals on Wheels (link), working to ensure everyone has access to adequate food in your community.  

There are many ways to do good work—to work for a kinder, more equitable world. Find what makes sense to you, what you want to do, and start there.   

---

• Not sure what you value or how to make a decision? In my own life, I have found both the Value Sort (link) and the 5 Ds of Good Work (link) useful in my own discernment process (including in my choice to donate a kidney). Be sure to check them out.

• Would you like to learn more about kidney donation? I recommend this video and article (link here) from Dylan Matthews at Vox.

Tackling Dilemmas at Work

by researcher Kirsten McHugh

We at The Good Project talk a lot about ethical dilemmas and how these sorts of difficult scenarios can make achieving good work so challenging. My colleagues and I have recently formalized our approach to confronting dilemmas at work. We refer to this approach as “The 5 D’s” and touched on it briefly in our group post, “The Good Project and COVID-19”. 

To bring this tool to life, let’s take a look at how we might apply The 5 D’s to one of The Good Project narratives: A Tale of Two Lawyers.

In this real-life narrative, Joseph is a lawyer presented with the opportunity to represent a large bank in his city with a new acquisition deal. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement required Joseph to withhold information from a colleague representing a competitor to the bank. With financial and professional gains at the forefront of his mind, and along with the support of senior members of the firm, Joseph accepted the offer from the bank. At the same time, he also only provided a half-truth to the colleague representing the bank’s competitor when this individual directly confronted him about the specifics of his dealings. Eventually, the full story came out, and his colleague was furious. The relationship remained icy, and thereafter others at Joseph’s firm were wary of working with him. While sharing the story, Joseph admitted he wishes that he had acted differently.

Joseph believes he did not technically cross any ethical lines according to lawyers’ ethical code of conduct, but he still regrets the outcome of his actions. In this way, Joseph’s dilemma is one that does not have a technically “wrong” or “right” answer that he could simply “look up”. This is precisely the type of dilemma that we had in mind when we envisioned the 5 D’s.

In his account, Joseph admits that he felt “torn” about what to do after his initial meeting with the bank. That being said, he did not explicitly categorize the situation as a dilemma. Realizing that you are in the midst of a dilemma is vital to recognizing that you need to slow down and consider the terrain before moving ahead with any gut reaction. Without this first step, it’s unlikely to find a path to the next stages of discussion and deliberation. In Joseph’s case, it’s clear that his jumping to a quick decision cost him his reputation among some of his coworkers.

How might have this story unfolded if Joseph had instead followed the 5 D’s? Let’s imagine a different series of events for Joseph and how they might have led to a more considered outcome.

1. Dilemma: Recognize a difficult decision in your daily life that may not have a “right”  course of action.

As discussed, Joseph felt torn, but that feeling unfortunately did not tip him off that he was in the midst of a dilemma. Had he been aware of the 5 D’s, perhaps he would have recognized that this was a situation with serious implications involving others—implications of which he might not be fully aware—and that he should stop to consider the landscape more carefully.

2.   Discuss: Consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons and probable consequences of various courses of action.

Had Joseph known he was facing a dilemma, his conversation with the firm’s upper-management might have been presented as a genuine question regarding the appropriate next steps instead of as a “pitch” for approval of his taking on the bank as a client. Ideally, senior partners of a firm are aware of the various matters other lawyers are involved in and would have voiced concern over any competing loyalties. They may have also shared their wisdom and long-view regarding the value of a trustworthy reputation among peers versus the short-term gains of one lucrative contract.

Obviously, to be effective this type of conversation requires “good workers” as colleagues. The senior partners would need to put the firm’s financial gains to the side and be prepared to give honest—even if possibly disappointing—advice to their colleague.

3.  Deliberate: Engage in self-reflection and consideration of the various options available.

If Joseph had engaged in thoughtful discussion with his superiors, he might have then taken time on his own to sift through their advice. Allowing different opinions to settle and to reflect on his own priorities and responsibilities, Joseph may have been able to carefully think through the repercussions of each available course of action.  

4.  Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision

Joseph says that if he could go back, he would do things differently. He has already written an alternative ending for himself. As Joseph describes in the original narrative:

“I probably would have gone back to the new client, and I probably would have said to him, ‘Look, everyone in our firm is a professional. In order for us to make an intelligent decision about this, I have to have a complete and open conversation with all of my partners, including partners who are connected to the other bank. And you have to just trust my partners that they will not disclose this confidence.’ And then if he had said, ‘Sorry, you’re either going to keep this to yourself or it’s not going to happen,’ then I probably would have declined.”

5.    Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.

Joseph says that over the years he has “told this story many times” and that “most people have advised him that he did the right thing”. We can assume that he is referring to others within the legal profession, but it’s not clear whether or not they are simply trying to console him.

If Joseph had followed the earlier steps, it’s possible that he could have debriefed with the senior partners he spoke with during step 2. This conversation might have also involved the colleague working with the bank’s competitor. It could have been an opportunity to build trust and comradery as a team, feeling like the decision was a group effort.

At the end of the narrative, Joseph describes his regret in how handled the situation:

“I felt that I owed the highest duty to the client, to follow their instructions in terms of not disclosing the matter. I felt I executed my duty of loyalty and candor to my partner as best I could under those circumstances… I think I touched all the right ethical bases, and everything I did was by the book, but it wasn’t necessarily the best way to handle it.”

Perhaps if Joseph had originally recognized this situation as a dilemma and been able to use the 5 D’s as a tool at the start, he would have saved his reputation and salved his conscience.

The problem with a dilemma is that there often isn’t one right or wrong answer. The 5 D’s don’t promise to bring us the “right” answer; but hopefully they help guide us towards the best available option based on our own personal values and ethical framework. And if things did not turn out as well as one had hoped, one still feels one did one’s best and will be better prepared for the next dilemma—assuming it’s recognized as such!

The Debate Over “Free Speech”: What Role Do Values Play?

by Danny Mucinskas

On July 7, 2020, Harper’s Magazine published an online letter titled “A Letter on Open Justice and Debate,” which warned readers of a “censoriousness” and “intolerance of opposing views” that appears to be spreading in the culture of the United States, leading to “public shaming and ostracism” and “calls for swift and severe retribution.” The letter was signed by dozens of prominent academics, writers, and others from across the political spectrum, including Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Linda Greenwood, Wynton Marsalis, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem.

Overall, the signatories expressed concern that free speech is being restricted, warning that lack of open debate “invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.” They cite no specific cases but are ostensibly referring to several incidents that occurred in the wake of racial justice protests around the country, such as the firing of data analyst David Shor for posting research supporting non-violent protests and the resignation of James Bennet of The New York Times following the publication of a controversial op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas calling for military intervention to quell unrest.

The letter immediately sparked controversy and criticism from detractors. Some felt that the letter was an attempt by those in positions of power to simply preserve ability to speak with impunity. Members of the transgender community spoke out, believing the letter to be problematic, especially as it had been endorsed by J.K. Rowling, who has recently come under fire for intolerance towards trans women. Others questioned why the letter was even published, at a time when the world is dealing with a global pandemic and the United States is facing a reckoning over racial violence and inequity. At least one signatory retracted her name, while another apologized for signing.

Others who signed have doubled down, though, saying that free speech and debate is a core tenet of liberalism, and that only by continuing to engage with and argue against opinions that we find uncomfortable will society make progress towards being more just and free.

One of The Good Project’s core principles is that personal views on contentious issues and dilemmas are influenced by the values that each of us believe are important, values such as those contained within our value sort activity. For example, an individual who values honesty above all else may choose not to cheat on a test; someone who values material well-being may choose to take a well-paying job they don’t enjoy simply to get a higher salary.

On a political level, Jonathan Haidt (who also signed the Harper’s letter), a social psychologist at New York University, has proposed moral foundations theory as a way to explain our policy preferences and reactions to social debates. Moral foundations theory proposes six core universal tensions that influence our views of ethical questions:

• Care vs. harm

• Fairness vs. cheating

• Loyalty vs. betrayal

• Authority vs. subversion

• Sanctity vs. degradation

• Liberty vs. oppression

Haidt’s research has shown that political preferences in the United States are tied to these foundations, with liberals prioritizing the care/harm and fairness/cheating dynamics above others and conservatives valuing all six foundations more equally. In the same way that differences in values cause people to make different individual decisions, the prioritization of moral foundations causes people to come to different political conclusions, aligning themselves with certain ideas, parties, or policies. The way that these foundations manifest in people’s opinions can also sometimes be confusing and vary or seem to conflict depending on the issue: someone who values the liberty of free speech may oppose abortion rights, an issue affecting women’s liberty, for reasons of sanctity; someone might support a free childcare policy for reasons of care, but oppose debt forgiveness for educational loans for reasons of fairness.

Perhaps the debate sparked by the Harper’s letter is a conflict between moral foundations of liberty and care playing out on the U.S. national stage. Should the liberty of free speech be valued at all costs, even if it causes harm to particular people or marginalized groups? Or should care be valued at all costs, even if it completely silences people from being able to express alternative viewpoints with liberty? Where is the line between these two extremes?

When I complete the value sort exercise, my most important values include “openness,” or being receptive to new ideas, and “pursuit of common good.” Perhaps this is why my opinions on this debate may feel frustratingly “in the middle” in an era of ever more polarized conversation on social media and a climate in which extreme views get the most attention in our media.

In my view, no person is entitled to have their opinions go unquestioned, and the panic surrounding “cancel culture,” which some of the signatories are likely reacting to, seems unfounded. Individuals with public platforms, including the letter’s endorsers, should always be prepared to defend their stances to others, such as those on social media who may disagree with their stances, sometimes in large numbers in a way that can be overwhelming. This is not “canceling,” but is a form of debate in itself. At the same time, we should not simply silence opinions we disagree with, or dole out extreme punishments for making mistakes. Changing other people’s values often takes engagement and convincing, not berating and silencing. As The Better Arguments Project (with which The Good Project recently collaborated) and their “Five Principles of a Better Argument” illustrate, debates require participants to listen passionately, embrace vulnerability, and make room to transform, even when we absolutely disagree and want to take a stand for our side.

However, I am only a single individual, and the majority view on these issues is likely to decide how care and liberty are to be prioritized and debates over free speech are to be resolved, if at all, since the fault lines represented by the moral foundations have existed in American society for centuries. Additionally, individual sectors, such as journalism, may develop new standards regarding speech that will set the norms for that field and the actors within it. For now, the answers to the questions I pose are difficult to discern, as we seem to be in the middle of a culture shift that will define the bounds of acceptability for years to come.

When does free speech “cross a line”? What consequences should an individual face for crossing that line? At what point could stifling free speech or shaming particular speech become dangerous? What values are most important to you in forming these opinions? If you are outside the United States, are there parallel or similar debates occurring in your country?

Recommended Reading: The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech