A632.5.4.RB How protected are your protected values?

In the Hoch text, based on Irwin and Baron's discussions on protected Values (pgs.251 ff.), reflect on three of your major protected values, support those values with at least three major beliefs and show the pros and cons of each belief in terms of trade-offs you are willing to make to support or not support that belief. How do these Protected Values potentially affect your own decision making? Do you feel as strongly about them as you did when you began this exercise?

Freedom of Speech:

Belief/Pro: A protected value for me is freedom of speech. I believe that freedom of speech is a basic human right. People should be able to say what they think and feel without fear of criminal charges, especially with regards to being critical of the government.

Con: The first major drawback to freedom of speech is how we have seen misleading, incorrect, emotionally charged information being spread on the internet and social media outlets. This is so prevalent that as a society we have labeled it “fake news” and there is an ongoing debate on whether this fake news influenced the outcome of the presidential election. The issues surrounding fake news have forced companies like Facebook to question their own protected value of freedom of speech. The question seems to be: How do we, social media, protect our customer’s freedom of speech while at the same time protect society from the damaging effects of fake news? This brings up a lot of complicated ethical questions such as: Does Facebook, or the government, have a right to limit or stop an individual from spreading this disinformation? If so, does this lead down a slippery slope of further limits to freedom of speech? However, if we allow fake news to continue, what are the consequences?

Belief/Pro: I also believe that freedom of speech is essential for a thriving, modern and democratic society. I think freedom of speech allows us to develop into our “better angels” by challenging ideas, the status quo and learning from our past. For example, through freedom of speech the civil rights movement allowed American society to take a look in the mirror and ask if we were upholding our American values by marginalizing and discriminating against a group of people because of the color of their skin. As a result, society and the government have made changes to help protect and support all American citizens equally.

Con: Freedom of speech also means that the ideas and beliefs of others expressed through speech are protected. Although potentially dangerous, if the freedom of speech is a protected value then it cannot be withheld from those I may strongly disagree with. For example, do I think a Neo-Nazi should be able to stand on a street corner and preach a hate-filled message? By asking this question there are more complicated and ethical questions that immediately come up that challenge this protected value. However, very reluctantly I would say that this person should have the right to do this as long as they are not making threats or inciting violence.

Belief/Pro: Freedom of speech is the foundation to other basic human rights. For example, without the freedom of speech there is no longer the right to assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion etc. For example, without freedom of speech I would be unable to form a group to support workers’ rights and bring this information to the media to bring about awareness.

Con: With freedom of speech, the public has almost an infinite amount of opinions and beliefs to filter through, and as a result it can become difficult to determine which ideas are the most beneficial at the individual and collective levels. As a result, decisions can be very difficult to make and action can be stalled. For example, the ongoing debate with gun control. There are so many strong polarizing opinions surrounding this issue from mental health, school safety, constitutional rights etc. that very little to no action has taken place despite recent mass shootings. 

Trade-offs and Consequences in Decision Making:

I still strongly believe that freedom of speech is something that should be guarded and protected, even if it means putting myself at risk or in harm’s way if I feel that this protected value is being threatened. However, as illustrated, there are many ethical questions that come up that make this protected value more complicated to protect. I believe that just because I don’t agree with what someone says, they still have a right to say it. I don’t agree with white supremacy groups that spread hate speech, but as a protected value I believe they have a right to say what they believe; because if they are silenced, who is silenced next? Ethically this is difficult for me, but I remember my dad saying, “Just because you have the right to say something, it doesn’t protect you from the consequences.” So for me, society can “silence” them in the court of public opinion through boycott and spreading positive ideas of their own.

I would say that I am willing to make some trade-offs with my freedom of speech with regards to fake news depending on the parameters. I am starting to think that fake news and the spread of propaganda has the potential to be extremely damaging to democracy and our society in general. Although I do not have the answers for how this should be done, I would be willing to trade-off some freedom of speech if it meant that the spread of fake news was significantly mitigated. The question with this becomes: Who polices those who stop fake news and propaganda from spreading?

My protected value of freedom of speech does have consequences in my decision making. First, it causes me to pause and ask if I am allowing all voices to be heard to include voices I may not disagree with. For example, in a team meeting as a leader I may decide to allow all opinions to be heard even if they disagree with me. I may also choose to protect someone’s freedom of speech even though I disagree with what they say and believe.

Access to Free Higher Education:

Belief/Pro: I believe that education, including higher education should be a right, not a privilege. Those who have more education tend to make higher wages (Porter, 2014) and as a result tend to make less risky life decisions (Payne, 2017). I get frustrated when I hear some people say things like, “If you don’t want to pay for an education then join the military.” Or, “Just get a better job and stop complaining about the debt.” To me their frame is wrong. Should a person have to sign up for the military and have the potential to be put in harm’s way just to have access to higher education? Should higher education be a privilege or a “pay to play” situation? For me, the value of an education is priceless and as a result should be an equalizing factor in society vs. a privilege to those who can afford it, or a major sacrifice to those who can’t afford it.

Con: At the end of the day someone ends up paying for college even if it is not the college student themselves. In order for higher education to be free income taxes would have to increase. On average Americans pay about 30% in income taxes, but Germans who offer free higher education have income taxes that are almost 50% (Jackson, 2017).

Belief/Pro:  I believe that with a more educated society poverty will decrease and America will be even more competitive in a global market.

Con:  In countries that offer free (or extremely reduced costs) higher education many students choose degrees that may not be practical with regards to finding a job (Weller, 2017). It has been found that how students choose their degree can be very different than American students. Students in Europe who are offered free education tend to select degrees that they feel that they will enjoy studying vs. a degree that will help them get a job (Weller, 2017). On the other hand, American students tend to be more practical in their approach to their degree selection to allow them to enter the job market successfully (Weller, 2017).

Belief/Pro: I believe that a free education will boost and support the American economy. I’m obviously not an economist, but speaking from experience once my college debt was paid off I had significantly more spending power. I eat out and shop more, travel more, and can afford larger purchases such as a new car, home etc., where before they were not even an option to look into. By having free education young adults will have more spending power and be able afford their own home and luxury items earlier in life which will support the economy.

Con: As mentioned before, students who are offered a free education often choose degrees that they enjoy studying vs. a degree that is more practical that will help them get a job. As a result, some students have the tendency to become what the Danish call “eternity students” (Weller, 2017). In other words, they hop around from degree to degree and take an extremely long time to complete their degree vs. sticking with one degree and seeing it through completion. I can see how this would also be an even higher burden on tax payers to support these type of students, and their ability to contribute more to the economy.

Trade-offs and Consequences in Decision Making:

First, I have to admit that I have discovered some hypocrisy to this protected value. My husband and I have decided that once we have kids, if they choose to go to college that we will pay for ½ of their education. Part of our rational for this is because we want to help our kids out since neither of our parents could afford to help us through college, and because we value education. As potential parents we also don’t want to go back to being in a mountain of debt with student loans, but this option will help give us and our kids a significant head start as young adults compared to ourselves.

When I was in college I had a professor from Norway that taught at my university as part of his sabbatical. I remember that he was the first person to introduce me to the idea of a free higher education. He explained that to most people in Scandinavian countries believe it is counter intuitive to not provide education to all of those who seek it. However, he did say that he enjoyed teaching American students more. He explained that American students have more passion and drive behind their education because they don’t take it for granted, whereas Norwegian students treat it as another hoop to jump through and have a more laze fair attitude toward their studies.

As a result of this exercise, and understanding my own hypocrisy,  I would be willing to make the trade-off to pay higher taxes to make higher education significantly more affordable to compromise with those who feel that higher education should be earned and not taken for granted.

Freedom of Religion

Belief/Pro – I believe that everyone has the right to believe what they want and practice their religion, or lack or religion, as they choose.

Con: What if religion A calls for acts of violence against religion B? Should the right to practice their religion be protected over the safety of those in religion B? We have seen this moral dilemma play out many times throughout history and acts of genocide have been committed based off of a religious belief.

Belief/Pro – The government should not impose a religion onto its people or show favoritism towards one religion over another.

Con – With so many different and sometimes opposing beliefs it is impossible to accommodate the many different religious beliefs. For example, there has been a debate about whether the 10 Commandments should be allowed in government buildings because it shows favoritism towards Judeo-Christian faiths. Others argue that by taking them away they are discriminating against their belief.

Belief/Pro - Religion is often a deeply personal and strongly held belief and a form of identity for people. As a result people should be allowed to practice their religion as a way to gain self-actualization.

Con – It is almost impossible to allow for complete freedom of religion because people use their religion as a moral compass in their decision making, which in a way imposes their beliefs onto others. For example, in the abortion debate the conversation of religion and morality are often used for those that are pro-life. In the case of those in congress who vote on these types of issues into law, some have said they have a religious obligation to vote pro-life. However, this vote imposes their religious belief on those that are pro-choice. 

Trade-offs and Consequences in Decision Making:  

For me, I see freedom of religion very similarly to how I see freedom of speech. I may disagree with a belief or a religion, but I still support the right to practice that religion. However, I do admit that there are extreme circumstances that freedom of religion must be questioned. For example, religious cults that brainwash people and hold people against their will, or call on their followers to commit acts of violence should be stopped. As described above, I can now see how true freedom of religion is impossible because peoples’ morals, ethics, and values are often closely tied to their religious belief which will influence their decision.

Do you feel as strongly about them as you did when you began this exercise?

Honestly, this was one of the hardest assignments for me to complete because I had a really hard time coming up with a personal protected value that I strongly believe in to the point that I would be unwilling to make tradeoffs. I can usually see an issue from multiple perspectives and as a result I can see the validity or downfalls of each side. I tend to be a middle of the road person so I don’t have extreme beliefs. I still very strongly believe in the freedom of speech, but I can also see that there are circumstances when threatening speech, slander and perjury should be punished. This assignment it has not changed my beliefs, but it has instead reinforced the idea that decisions must be looked at within the context of the problem. For me it is perhaps more dangerous to make a decision based off of a protected value without looking at moral and ethical context surrounding the issue. For example, I listened to a Vietnam veteran give a speech about his experience. He said that as a squad leader he had to choose who to send out on different scouting missions. He said that he started to choose new recruits for these missions over those he had been with for a long time. He said, “How could I look at the guy next to me who’ve I shared experiences with that no one else will ever understand? How can I send my brother out instead of the stranger?” He also went on to say, “War is not easy and there is no longer a simple right or wrong, so you cannot judge my morality unless you too have been in my situation.” For every protected value I would argue that there is a way to challenge it to make the protected value no longer seem like the correct or ethical choice. This is why I would say that it is more important to look at the context of the problem and make decisions from there, vs. making a decision that is solely based off of a protected value.

  

Resources:

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.

Jackson, Abby. (17 April 2017). ‘Free’ College Education in Europe isn’t free. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/how-do-european-countries-afford-free-college-2017-4

Porter, Eduardo. (10 September 2014). A Simple Equation: More Education = More Income. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/business/economy/a-simple-equation-more-education-more-income.html.

Weller, Chris. (1 December 2017). 5 people from around the world share what it's like to get free college education. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/free-college-education-what-its-like-2017-10#finland-5.