What Matters Most In Marriage?

Although I do like the general message of this article, I don’t think people kill or steal just because they ‘feel’ like it. There are many factors to consider. People reason, weigh the odds; people were raised differently, have different brains/chemical balances; people were born into different types of life situations, environments, and cultures. So many things influence the choices you make in life and the paths you may take. Also, although I agree they are important to have and live by, just because you have values, doesn’t mean they are necessarily ‘good/bad’. People value all sorts of things differently, especially considering your particular religion/culture. In the past, people have ‘valued’ certain groups of humans over others… Some people may truly value all life forms equally, so perhaps they would be just as devastated by either the human or dog drowning. Feelings influence values and vise versa.

This explanation only holds if you presume (some) values are humanist and universal. It is way to common in history of mankind that horrible things were done in the name of values. Take both World Wars: Did people FEEL like killing and dying? Not really, but both sides of the conflict fought to protect their values (they claimed). Without defining what “good values” are supposed to be, this article could be (dangerously) interpreted as “ends justify any means”, which was certainly not the speakers intention.

Great article — what many people seem to fail to understand is that the only way to be happy is by consistently living ACCORDING to your values (integrity). This is because true happiness can only be built on a foundation of true self-respect. And self-respect, like all respect, is EARNED. This sounds obvious, but I’m amazed how many folks don’t seem to get this: We respect ourselves only when we act in ways that are worthy of respect. Most of the time, that means doing what we believe is right, regardless of our feelings. Modern pop psychology tells us to “respect ourselves,” but acts as if this is an automatic thing, a choice, a switch we can flip on or off. And that’s why it fails to work — self respect can only be built over time, and it can only be torn down over time. So all that to say: My prescription for happiness is as follows: Start with good values, live by them as much as possible, improve each time you miss the mark, and in so doing, you will build your self-respect. Only once your self-respect reaches a basic healthy level, and is maintained and grown, can you start to be truly happy. Once you get that concept, then living by your values becomes easier, because you realize that if you compromise your values to “gain something” (love, money, ANYTHING), you are doing so at the direct cost of your self-respect and happiness. Which is actually infinitely more valuable than whatever you had hoped to “gain.” My two cents, anyway. 🙂

I would probably save my dog’s life first because I value my dog before other strangers. Generally I don’t value any life that high, I believe in good and doing good to others but I don’t think life is that important. If people just won’t do harm to each other when they don’t have to that would be a great improvement from the world today.

Excellent article. Very easy to understand and comprehend, and yet hard to apply. But the message is clear: values are indeed important, and like the gentleman said in the article, the conflict between our “feelings” and our “values” is what is most important in how we treat others. Great stuff- cant wait for more! 🙂

The problem with this article is that money, love, and happiness are all values themselves. And “values” is subjective- I may have completely different values than anyone else (and I probably do). Mr. Prager doesn’t understand this when he speaks of morals: 4:19. Morals are also subjective because there is no evidence anywhere that supports something being “moral” or “immoral” besides what you personally believe.

Principles and values are the laws of life that God had established. Just as the physical world has laws, life also has laws called “principles”. Follow them and you will live a happy and fulfilling life, ignore them and they will break you. Nobody can’t go against the principles thats like the egg and the rock.

I have battled my feelings against my principles every day of my 27 years in Japan. I believed and still do, that it is morally wrong to walk past stray or abandoned animals and do nothing, and yet by taking them in, I was sacrificing any chance of saving money, travelling, returning home, seeing friends and family, having a decent rented house to live in, (I lived for 12 years in a house which didn’t even have a floor in the bathroom!), buying myself nice clothes, learning to drive, taking a course to make myself more employable if I ever had the chance to return home… the list is endless. My husband died of illness – we never even had a holiday together nor saw each other much as I was working days and evenings to make ends meet and trying to look after all the dogs and cats I had. Friends in both Japan and my home country told me to stop rescuing these animals and all along I have just wanted someone to say, ok rescue them and I will help you, but no one did. Now it is unlikely that I will ever have the chance to go back to my home country. I have no pension. I am alone. Now I only have 8 animals but I still cannot even go away for a night. Am I happy that I had moral principles over feelings?? NO. It has been a gruelling 27 years where I often felt like walking over a cliff. Am I proud? Yes, in a way, but who gives a toss anyway. I read somewhere that the real meaning of free will is not having the freedom to do whatever you like but being able to make the choice to do something that is against your own interests.

I definitely disagree. Yes, values have some value, but this ignores the truth of Maslow’s Triangle, and values do not become even significant until the basics needs of Life are satisfied. For the majority of people on this planet that struggle for basic needs is very real. Also, the thing that stops people from eating all they want is NOT their values, but common sense and their own bodies giving them signals they are doing something harmful. As for the root of “everything wrong” in the world, that comes mainly from our genetically wired fear, superstition, and greed for material things and power. Wishing you Love, Truth and Peace

Prager U, Regarding the dog vs human thing I believe the example is kind of flawed. Hear me out please. the example should be who would you save first. Given the situation, your dog or (place any loved one here e.g. your mom/dad/sis/bro/girlfriend/boyfriend). Then ask the person why? Only then capitalize on the whole “human value” thing. Because let’s face it humans tend to be more protective of their own property than others. That’s why it’s kind of difficult for other people to choose the stranger than their own dog. Take this for example, your late father gave you his watch ( a diver’s watch, you’ll see why in a minute) when you were just 6 yrs old, to always remind you of him whenever you feel sad/lonely etc., because you love your father and the moments that the two of you shared together, you treasured the watch. At 8 yrs. old, you saved up money from your allowance and you bought the dog you always wanted, it kept you company when you felt sad/lonely etc. so you loved and treasured it as well. Now imagine this. You are swimming in a river with a strong current, with you wearing the watch and your dog as your companion. For some unknown reason, both the watch and the dog was swept away by the current of the river. Fortunately, the watch was snagged by a branch and the dog was also snagged by another branch (which was parallel to the other branch). Let’s say, you can only get to choose one over the other. Knowing/Given that if you choose one, the other would be swept away by the river forever, never to be seen again.

Yeah no, any basic research into Ethics and Moral Problems can show that the idea of “values” isn’t set in stone, and is really just another form of social subjugation. Your values are also entirely dictated by your “feelings”. Moral Relativism like this has been easily countered. I’m not saying people cant find their own values, but you can quite clearly look at society and judge who is a better or worse person, and that is independant of how happy they are.

Very Beautifully Made, I Really Enjoyed It. Earlier In India, Debate and Philosophy Was Central To Education System & Religion. The Indian Philosophy of Life Is To Adapt The Life Towards Dharma (Dharma is The True Value Of Practice Or Worth Or Responsibility). Dharma Cannot Be Written As A Rule Since It Cannot Be Confined, Rather It Is The Sum Total Of Good Feelings As We Evolve And It Consists Of Human Cherished Parameters Like Compassion, Forgiveness, Kindness, Righteousness, Helpful, Love, Affection, Selfless Service, Ethical Responsibility, Moral Responsibility, Duties of A Citizen, Duties As A Family Person, Family Head, Friend, Student, Blood Relative etc. The Beauty In This Philosophy Is That It Has No Scope Towards Religion, Rituals And Stuffs Which Divide The Society And Humans. The Sanatana Dharma Which Is The Basis For Ancient Indian Society Disregards Religion and Gods (In Fact It Even Postulates That There is No God Or Supreme Beings Except The Collective Consciousness Of Living Things, Which Manages To Strike A Balance Between All The Energies Of The Universe For Existence). The Essence Of Human Life Is To Live A Life Of Good Values, Live A Full Life As A Evolved Human In-coexistence With Everyone, Live A Life With No Regrets, All These I Believe Are Part Of Value Systems. Good That I Saw This article

I agree with almost everything here. My only exemption is that I value animal life enough to be vegetarian. Both the dog and human has consciousness. The human is more evolved, therefore may have a greater consciousness than the dog, but it isn’t a doubt that animals feel, see, hear, taste, smell, and think just like you and I. I refrain from eating meat because my values tell me not to, trust me, the temptation was there a lot in my life. I felt like eating meat. But my value of life conflicted this. As I see it, we need to be bigger than the average animal and not kill, lest we are just as savaged as a wild animal. As for who to save? I wouldn’t judge anyone for their decision on this. I would just try to save the life closest to me first, regardless of which one it is, to try to save both in utilitarianism.

I submit some points to consider, since I do not understand the account of values espoused by Mr. Prager. “A value,” he states, “is something you think is more important than anything else.” This is a confusing way to define values, because by definition, it suggests there can be one and only one value, or that all values are equally important, and each is more important than all other things. But that’s not how, as I understand it, most people think of values. He goes on to say that values are more important than money, more important than love, and more important than happiness. But all of those things are things that can be valued. A person can value wealth or wealth acquisition, these being two different ways to value money. Or you can value money as a means to satisfy your basic needs, to satisfy certain wants, and indeed, to achieve other things you value (I saw Mr. Prager in one of his fireside chats talk about people in today’s world increasingly do not have hobbies–one can value a certain activity as a hobby, and value money insofar as it allows them to engage in that activity). Similarly, love is for many people a value or at least something valued. And so is happiness. So I think there’s something of a category mistake here. Unless Prager is saying we should value values, but most people, by valuing X thereby value the valuing of X. There are interesting questions here about the value of values–questions well worth reflecting on. But I feel Mr. Prager’s article is deeply confused from the get-go regarding what a value is, and the sorts of things that are the objects of value (again, many people value money, love, and happiness, and many people value money as a means to happiness).

i think the last part of the article is a bit simplistic. There are people who kill, because they follow their values (like fighting for indipendence of their place they live or follow their religious believes) even though they do not get actual joy out of killing. From my experience it is not just the conflict between feeling and value that is relevant, but also conflicts between contradicting values within a situation.

Values and feelings are one. When you decide to save a human first thats because you fear people will criticize you since the majority of our society puts humans ahead of othere living things. We are emotionally attached to greater things by careful calculation you see that saving a human is greater thus we save a human first.

You should save the person, but it won’t be easy. I wouldn’t blame someone for saving their dog because of how difficult it could be to overcome their emotional and maybe even instinctual desire to save what they love. But in a rational state of mind, you have to save the person. Human life is more valuable than animal life.

Dog comes first. And i mean it, period. If you think too much (in case of described drowning event), you loose seconds, which might mean both die. Does that make me a bad person??? Who knows, you would have to define what that means first, anyway, and it’s a tricky stuff. And i FEEL (i can’t say KNOW, i’m no psychologist, huh), like this article is over-oversimplified explanation of most topics mentioned. I mean you did great job to stuff it in 5 minutes frame… I am good at making excuses, i even make excuses for others, and i do it for free 😉 So i’m pretty shure i will find rationalisation, later, why the way i acted was right and moral 😉

Okay, lets say you have a place called “Happiness” that you want to visit three times a day, and it is too far away to walk. You need to get there, so you pay the “Cheap Thrills” taxi $10 three times a day to get there. You realize you are paying $900 a month, and you can’t afford that, so you decide to go only once a day, and save up to get a car “Values.” With that car, you pay only 300 a month, accounting for gas and insurance to visit Happiness three times a day. You come to love your car and treasure it. One day Values crashes into another car, and you find out it would cost a lot to repair it, and it will never work as well. Because you love Values, you will pay any amount to maintain it, and you take fewer trips to Happiness to cover the costs, rather than considering other options. This situation is perverse. Values are a means of accomplishing an end, some of which might include Love and Happiness. While it may be foolish to flippantly pursue short-term gains in either end, Values are worthless unless they provide those ends in the long term.

I completely agree as a whole, but as an individual, that’s just frankly wrong. I could choose not to abide by good values, and be a bank robber, but that wouldn’t compromise any of the other things that matter to me, as you said it would. At the start, you stated that you could not have Love, money, or happiness without good values, but let’s assume that I am a competent bank robber, so I don’t get caught, and I’ve never killed anyone. I would still be happily married, and would certainly have wealth, so surely that falsifies your statement at the beginning?

I’d save the dog since he’s objectively closer to me than the other person is. They’re the same distance out as the dog (presumably) but also 100 feet to the right, meaning the total distance to them would be longer. Also, dogs weigh less and are thus less likely to drown you while you attempt to rescue them.

I’d save my dog first! I would try to help the person, after I saved my dog. I’d even try yelling for help and try to save both at the same time, but just because I’d choose to save my dog first doesn’t mean I don’t care about others, it’s about a relationship with your dig verses a stranger, and I’d like to think if it was a hypothetical question of saving a person who love verses a stranger, I’d think you’d save the one you have a relationship with.

I would say that moral values are the most important things for everybody else to have. Like the prisoners dilemma, the best result for me is I cheat and you don’t, the best result for you is you cheat and I don’t, the worst result is we both cheat. It benefits all of us to enforce values on others – the concept of rule of law.