Knowledge vs. Values
People often make the mistake of conflating their values regarding a particular subject with the knowledge they possess about it. This leads to what is often an apples/oranges argument over the right way to handle a problem.
Knowledge vs. values. They are not the same thing.
My values tell me to be pro-life, because of course, all life is sacred. From a value perspective, that’s not even a discussion. But my knowledge tells me about all the unwanted children and the challenging futures that await both the non-invested parents and the children themselves.
As harsh as it sounds, some would consider children born to parents who do not want them burdens to society (unless of course suitable adoptive parents are found, but viable alternatives are not the focus of this piece). It is not their fault, of course, but the argument is that we all wind up footing the bills for the care of them (and often the parents as well), for what often results in terrible upbringings leading to unfulfilled lives.
That view is, after “my body, my choice”, the next largest justification for removing them - that the burden of them outweighs their value as living beings, whether to society (which must care for them), to the mothers (who do not want to raise them), or to themselves (if they end up in foster care or some other horrible situation).
When we argue about abortion, we usually do so from a framework of values (usually from the right) against a framework of statistical knowledge (usually from the left), which is why we never make any headway. Facts can be debated against other facts and feelings against other feelings. But nobody is swayed when we debate one with the other - feelings don’t affect cold facts, and cold facts don’t affect feelings.
Homelessness is another issue. My values say these are people who need our help, though many view them as another societal burden. Knowledge obviously supports that claim - the myriad issues they present, from drug addiction to mental illness to sanitation, inevitably become the responsibility of everyone else.
Oddly, many of those who are guided by their values and want to leave the homeless alone because they don’t feel they are a burden to society are also the same people who dismiss unborn children because of the burden they present. It seems a strange, and even hypocritical, juxtaposition, as I’ve shown with regards to capital punishment in a previous article.
Immigration creates the same conflicting foundational arguments. The left bases its view on values, that these are human beings who need help and a chance to thrive when none exists where they come from. The right recites the knowledge about countless issues caused by unchecked immigration.
The left counters with attacks on the right’s values by calling them heartless and racist, and with questionable facts which are cherry-picked to conveniently ignore all the negatives. The right counters that they’re in favor of immigration done legally, and considers the left’s facts little more than indoctrinated sensationalism (or, more simply, lies they’ve been fed from above).
Both ideologies take turns, and whether they defend their stances based on knowledge or values depends on what suits their argument best. Interestingly, when they choose values, they do so claiming the other side doesn’t have any. Then, when they choose knowledge, they do so claiming the other side is foolish for ignoring data in favor of feelings.
Few people consistently base their views on just one or the other, which makes us all hypocrites to some degree. Any who would do so based solely on statistical data would be considered cold and inhumane, while any who would do so based solely on values would be considered out of touch and ignorant. Nobody wants to be either, but rather than balancing the two for all our opinions, we vacillate between them depending on which better suits us in the moment.
Why do we have so much trouble balancing our knowledge and values when forming opinions about important things? Why the need to climb on one political bandwagon or the other? It seems that many of our most divisive issues would find some compromise if we could discuss them from the same foundational perspectives.
Caring about unborn babies, homeless people, immigrants, or any other marginalized group should not require ignoring the negatives that accompany them. We have to find ways to balance the two, so we can come together and make informed decisions which can help the helpless without sacrificing too much of what we’ve built.
Zephareth Ledbetter’s latest book, “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism - Rational Thoughts on an Irrational World”, is available cheap at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004, and his archive can be found on Substack
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
I believe it was Hume who pointed out the IS/OUGHT paradox as a vulnerability of the scientific method. That is, there is nothing about knowing what IS that can inform as to what OUGHT to be. And we suffer from this paradox today risking existential threats emerging from the application of technological developments (the hydrogen bomb, AI that lies, etc.). This analysis of knowledge vs values displays the paradox. To my way of thinking, knowledge only answers the question of CAN; can something be done. Knowledge actually is incapable of enlightening the question of whether or not something OUGHT be done. To view the is/ought paradox as simply a reflection of knowledge vs values is simplistic and misguided. It does not illuminate choice that brings nobility to the human spirit.
My perception is conception. Thanks man.