Hello everyone,
A tool is only as useful as it actually functions in its intended purpose.
1. What is a value?
A value is a primary direction we choose to take; actions have values as their base/foundation. A value is the quality of our actions. A value represents, deep down, the enduring quality/ies of personhood/being we most cherish/value.
2. What is the primary purpose/function of a value?
The primary function of a value, like the other ACT pivots, is to produce (i.e., increase the probability of) “better outcomes”: relatively deeper, lasting, durable feelings/experiences of relative fulfilment/satisfaction/happiness, and more of these types of relatively desirable experiences. A value exists in our lives/behaviors to serve/satisfy this fundamental purpose/deep desire/core yearning.
Action/intention + quality of action (value) = increased probability of relatively better/more desirable outcomes.
The extent to which a value actually functions to produce such “desirable outcomes” when followed/pursued as a “quality of action” is the extent to which the value can be considered relatively “true” (“truth” is a functional term in CBS philosophy).
3. Do all values serve this purpose/function?
Perhaps (by definition), but some values may likely function better than others in this fundamental purpose (i.e., relatively “truer” values).
…
I’m making the case that one value in particular is ideally suited for an executive position as a relatively universal/fundamental/core “quality of action”: Morality or moral action/intent.
…
4. How is “moral action/intent” best/ideally suited to serve the primary function of a value?
Due to the nature/qualities of the results/consequences made more likely by engaging in this type/quality of behavior.
Allow me to elaborate…
…
First, let’s consider this scenario:
A person is in a room, sitting on a chair at one end of a long table. In front of them, on the table, is a machine capable of delivering electric shocks of varying intensities, the most extreme of which are experienced as excruciatingly painful/agonizing. From this machine run many wires connected to electrodes; these electrodes are connected to various strategic parts on the person’s body. Behind the machine, on the table, is a wall/barrier, tall and wide, that directly divides the table in half (so the person can’t see the other side). On the other side of the table is a contraption that controls the onset, magnitude, and duration of the shocks to be delivered to the person. And there is a chair in front of that contraption for people to (anonymously) sit on.
Suppose this person hooked up to this machine had, in/throughout their life, engaged in actions such as murder, sexual assault/battery/rape, and robbing/thefts and, among the group of people that will be allowed to enter this room (and control this person’s relative pain/suffering for a period of time) will be direct victims of these actions, direct relatives/friends/loved ones of victims of these actions, people that love/care about people negatively affected by these actions, and even people who have no connection at all to victims but know (and hate/despise) of the actions performed by this person. It would not be surprising to find that people in this group, who likely endured/still endure great suffering/hatred as a result of actions committed by the person strapped to the machine, deliver relatively more/higher magnitude and duration shocks than others might/would. It would also not be surprising to find that some from this group delivered the highest possible magnitude shocks, the longest possible duration of shocks, and/or both.
Assuming the victims/people from this group delivering the shocks didn’t receive any form of tangible reinforcer/compensation for doing so, and their participation was completely anonymous, what would account for the (likely) increased probability for higher magnitude/duration shocks delivered?
A likely answer is simply that people in this group, the victims/sufferers of heinous acts, would be more likely to derive levels of satisfaction/pleasure from the actual experience of delivering shocks/pain/suffering to this person. For these people, the product of their actions (i.e., the person experiences physical pain/suffering) is likely to be the reinforcer for the action/s of pushing buttons to deliver shocks. In other words, these people are/would be relatively more likely to desire the suffering/pain/undesirable experience of this person and experience it is a beneficial/desirable outcome to their actions.
And now suppose this person hooked up to this machine, aside from murder/sexual assault/robbery, had also told many lies/falsehoods in their life, spread rumors/accusations/gossip about others, cheated others, and regularly offended others with harsh/hurtful words. If victims of these type of actions- people that were lied to/about, cheated, slandered, and/or offended/hurt by this person’s words/actions-, or their loved ones, were to enter this room, it also wouldn’t be surprising if they were relatively more likely to deliver (at least) some levels shocks/pain/suffering to this person. These people (i.e., victims) of these type/qualities of action would also likely derive some level of satisfaction/pleasure/reinforcement from this person’s pain/suffering.
The point/goal of this scenario is to reach the following conclusion: The qualities of our actions likely affect the probability of the qualities (e.g., the relative desirability) of results/consequences/stimulus conditions in present, ongoing, and/or future environments/moments (i.e., moment to moment).
That is to say, if people harbor feelings of hate/dislike/ill will/aversion towards us, then this has the likely function/product of increasing the probability of feelings/experiences/conditions that are relatively undesirable/aversive/suffering in current, ongoing, and/or future moments/environments.
In the scenario provided, people negatively affected by the types/qualities of actions of the person strapped to the machine would be more likely (than others) to derive reinforcement/pleasure from inflicting actual pain/suffering to this person. In real life, people aren’t strapped to such machines; and yet, if their suffering/pain is a reinforcing/desirable consequence for the actions of others (i.e., they are hated/disliked), then the probability of this person experiencing relatively more/higher magnitude/rate/duration aversive experiences in their lifespan (i.e., current, ongoing, and/or future moments; “moment to moment”) likely increase.
For example:
The victims, or their loved ones, of murder, sexual assault, and or burglary would be likely to attempt to punish the person who engaged in these actions by, among other things: (1) trying to send them to prison/death penalty/kill them; (2) trying to physically/emotionally/financially harm them in some way; (3) letting others know of these deeds done so that others also come to know of them and (likely) feel relative hatred/aversion towards them as well.
All of these efforts by victims (or their loved ones) have a common function: to increase the probability of current, ongoing, and/or future pain/aversion/suffering for this person who commits these types/qualities of acts. For these people/victims, this is more likely to represent a reinforcing/desirable consequence for their actions.
The same reasoning applies to victims of lying, cheating, slander, etc. These type/qualities of actions, as they are more likely than other types/qualities of actions to cause feelings of relative anger/hatred/aversion towards the perpetrator, also likely function to increase the probability of current, ongoing, and/or future pain/aversion/suffering. Just perhaps/usually not to the extent that might be expected for one who murders or sexually assaults other which would likely cause relatively more, deeper, durable feelings of relative anger/hatred/aversion. Still, the function of these types/qualities of action is in the same direction: an overall increase in the probability of negative/undesirable outcomes.
Thus, the type/qualities of actions that function to cause relatively more pain/distress/suffering in others (e.g., murder; sexual assault; robbery) are also more likely to function to increase the probability of undesirable/aversive/painful experiences/stimuli in our own lives (i.e., "You reap what you sow"). These types/qualities of results/consequences are not in accordance with our common deep desire to head in the direction of relatively “better/desirable outcomes”. These types/qualities of actions have results/consequences that tend to go in the other, opposite, undesirable direction.
The types/qualities of action that function to increase relative pain/aversion/suffering can therefore be conceived/understood as undesirable/unhelpful in our pursuit of relatively “better/desirable outcomes” and, therefore, “should be” (from a functional standpoint) relatively un-valued/anti-value/s. We can think of these type/qualities of action (in relation to others), and their undesirable products, as relatively “Immoral”.
…
5. What is Immorality or immoral action/intent?
Immoral action/intent is a quality of action (in relation to others) that functions to increase the current, ongoing, and/or future probability of relatively undesirable/painful/aversive stimuli/conditions/environments for the individual.
Therefore…
6. What is Morality or moral action/intent?
Moral action/intent is a quality of action (in relation to others) that functions to decrease the current, ongoing, and/or future probability of relatively undesirable/painful/aversive stimuli/conditions/environments for the individual. This primary function of morality can simultaneously be conceived as a net gain in the opposite direction: these qualities of actions function to (relatively) increase current, ongoing, and/or future (relative) pleasure/satisfaction/happiness.
This is to say, the function of moral action/intent, as a quality of action/behavior, is to produce stimulus conditions/environments more conducive to “better outcomes” for ourselves (as well as for others).
This function of morality happens to be essentially the same as the (ideal) function/purpose of following a “value”. They are functionally compatible. They are pointed/headed in the same direction: increased probability of desirable outcomes/destinations/experiences.
Morality, and its desirable/beneficial products, therefore, has a better than average chance at being a relatively “true value” or “true direction” (one that is more likely than others to lead to better outcomes because that is the primary function). This being the case, it is a value that one can/should have relatively more faith/conviction in as a fundamental/core direction. It likely functions to produce the very reason/outcomes one goes to see a therapist:
Relatively more, deeper, durable (relative) happiness/satisfaction/contentment/pleasure/fulfilment.
The way I see it, morality/value can be conceived as a functional tool for professional seekers of “better outcomes”. It is a tool of the wise.
It’s a precision tool well/best suited for the task at hand.
…
One final thing:
Imagine that you yourself were to walk into a room in which another person was strapped to the machine that delivers shocks (same as in previous scenario). But, in your case, this person in such a vulnerable position is not someone you harbor feelings of hate/aversion for. This person has never killed, harmed, or robbed you or anyone (that you are aware of). This person has treated you with (mostly) moral/wholesome qualities of behavior such as kindness, compassion, patience, generosity, and honesty. They have become someone you have developed relative trust for. You feel relatively good/peaceful/relaxed/at ease in their presence due to your history with them and the qualities of their actions.
You would probably be unlikely to deliver any painful shocks to this person at all in such a scenario. In fact, one might be more inclined to help someone like this in such an unfortunate situation (as you might imagine they might do for you). Thus, not only would we be unlikely to derive pleasure/satisfaction from this person’s pain/suffering, but we would be more likely to derive pleasure/satisfaction/reinforcement by helping this person out in their current situation (i.e., increasing their relative pleasure/satisfaction). Such are the types/qualities of the desirable benefits/outcomes of relatively moral/blameless/wholesome/loving actions.
One can never know how, when, and in what capacities such relatively moral/blameless/wholesome/loving actions bear their desirable fruits/outcomes. But the faith/confidence/conviction can be relatively strong that moral action/intent, as a chosen quality of actions, will bear more (quantity/quality) of such relatively desirable types/qualities of results/consequences in current, ongoing, and/or future conditions.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.
Jesse