"moral value"?

[Conal Elliott]

If so, then Craig would be saying that NVC doesn't speak to moral judgments.  I doubt he means that.

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Niklas Wilkens <Vor...@gmx.de> wrote:

I'm reading that Craig uses moral value and moral judgement interchangeably.

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:55:49 -0700

> Von: "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net>
> An: nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
> Betreff: Re: On abortion and moral intuition

> "Moral value"?  What's an example of a moral value that's not a moral
> judgment?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <
> st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

> > ...One of the beauties of

> > the NVC approach is that it does not speak to moral values (not moral
> > judgments) and leave a lot of freedom to explore.

[Conal Elliott]

What I was intending is that our moral judgments are or can be
separate from judgmentalism. NVC seems to have this as a basic
foundation which I really resonate with.

Do you know where you picked up this idea as having to do with NVC?

I don't know what "judgmentalism" could be other than a label for someone tending toward making and operating from moral judgments.

 - Conal

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

Hi Conal, this is Craig:

I did not express myself as clearly as I would have liked to have.
What I was intending is that our moral judgments are or can be
separate from judgmentalism. NVC seems to have this as a basic
foundation which I really resonate with.

 [...]

On Sep 30, 6:55 pm, "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net> wrote:
> "Moral value"?  What's an example of a moral value that's not a moral
> judgment?
>

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Craig Sones Cornell wrote:
>
> > Hi Niklas, this is Craig:
>
> > Your post on relative moral decision making realy stimulated and moved
> > me. It has added a clarity that I lacked about how to defend a pro-
> > choice position. I am still pondering how to integrate it with NVC,
> > but maybe it is not really part of NVC exactly. One of the beauties of

> > the NVC approach is that it does not speak to moral values (not moral
> > judgments) and leave a lot of freedom to explore.

>[...]
>
> > All the best, Craig.

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Another try. I am trying to make a distinction between moral judgments/
values and judging others. Judgementalism is a shorthand (label
perhaps) for judging others. Obviously it applies to judging others.

Hope that helps.

Craig.

> > > > All the best, Craig.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Angela Harms]

So your idea is that you are happy to judge actions as right and wrong, when making choices about your own behavior? But that you don't judge other people, or their actions? Is that right?

I'm curious whether you've considered the idea that an action can help or hinder you in meeting your needs, but is not objectively right or wrong? This is my understanding of the NVC idea about moral values.

Angela
---
Life. Love. Food. www.lifelovefood.com
Cornucopia Press www.cornucopiapress.com
Writers' Editing Workshop www.writerseditingworkshop.com

[Conal Elliott]

Thanks, Craig.  Making more sense to me now. 

As I understand Marshall, moral judgment is at the opposite end of the spectrum from NVC consciousness.

  - Conal

[Conal Elliott]

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Craig Sones Cornell wrote:
>
> > Hi Niklas, this is Craig:
>
> > Your post on relative moral decision making realy stimulated and moved
> > me. It has added a clarity that I lacked about how to defend a pro-
> > choice position.

If you're defending *any* position, I'd say you're missing the heart of NVC.

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Conal, thank you for this second or third chance to be clear. In going
back to the book, the distinction as expressed in NVC is Value
Judgment vs. Moralistic Judgment. This takes a twist on what I
understand morals to be, but I think the intent is as I expressed in
too many words. A core value as opposed to judging others.

All the best, Craig.

> > > > judgments) and leave a lot of freedom to explore.- Hide quoted text -

[Conal Elliott]

Okay.  What's an example of a value judgment (or "core value") that you care about?  I'm still wondering whether it's moralistic judgment looking for another place to hide.

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Angela, I am afraid I have made a muddle here. The official NVC
distinction is between moral values vs. moralistic judgment. The point
as I understand it is that we are encouraged to have values but not to
judge orselves or others. Judgments are jackal and are beautiful as
indicators of something deeper and more life serving going on. Morals
are what? NVC does not officially espouse any values aside from needs
excpet for social justice, which is awfully vague. The whole thing
leads me to a headache and confusion if taken to its logical
conclusions. It is hard to have a core value that does not lead to
judgment is it not? The Christians express this as love the sinner,
hate the sin. But that creates its own vortex of unclarity and power
relationship problems for me.

I am glad to have this kind of exchange with you.

Craig.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Actually, it is moralistic judgment.

Craig

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Thanks Conal: Not my deeper meaning here. I am pro-choice, but lacked
clarity as to why or how I could understand and express it. It is in a
rather complex honesty with myself process that I was stuck. I am
using defending imprecisely. I mean understand or comprehend how my
pro-choice position could square with my core values and value
processing. I am moved by but do not resonate with the stories that
take the pro-choice side as they have been posted here. I have deep
appreciation with and empathy for the story tellers, but their stories
do not do it for me. Actually, my profoundest and deepest hope is to
find ways to connect with and between the two sides. The "defending"
is more for my own clarity and soul. I hope I am not out of the heart
of NVC. If you would still say I am missing the heart of NVC, please
help me understand.

Craig.

[Craig Sones Cornell]

Conal:

My core values as I have expressed them in an online training are
listed below. The core value is in caps. The needs that cluster around
the core value follow each core value.

EVOLUTION—Harmony, Flow, Consciousness, Graciousness, Presence, and
Transcendence.
CREATIVITY—Meaning, Purpose, and Empowerment.
MASTERY—Self-Expression, Focus, Clarity, Learning, Well-Being,
Adventure, Cutting Edge Excitement, Challenge, Authenticity, and
Satisfaction.
CONNECTION—Self-Expression, Mutuality, and Communication.
MENTORSHIP—Support, Autonomy, and Empowerment.

The training is in transformational coaching. It has as a foundational
supposition that core values are needs that remain steady for a longer
period of time. Needs shift from moment-to-moment. It uses NVC but
includes a whole range of communication, goals setting, and value/
vision enhancement techniques that are not explicitly NVC. For me it
is a powerful expression of the essence of NVC that expands the model.
\

Hope that helps. Tell me what you think might be lurking here.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Niklas Wilkens]

To me the difference between moralistic judgement and value judgement is just the level of awareness, about how this judgement came about. Frankly, a moralistic judgement tends to be leaving out a whole lot of information, which would be necessary for a heart-to-heart connection. That doesn't make it less rooted in human feelings and needs.

For example, if I say that abortion is wrong, what do I mean? Do I mean that somebody whose opinion is important to me (because he or she leads a group I belong to) doesn't find it desirable, and therefore I take over his or her position, in order to be incluced in the group? Do I mean that I see serious consequences of abortion that I'd like people to be protected from? Do I mean that I see the fetus as a sentient being and I'd like to preserve its life, because I see myself connected to it?
You see, every moralistic judgement has a context. And if that context is omitted, it's very hard to see, how the judgement serves life, because the circumstances, under which it would be clear that it does, are not mentioned.

Incidently, I heard Marshall empasizing that judgements are very important, because we need to be able to choose the consequences that we want. And I agree. They are the power of discernment. Only the moralistic type tends not to help to connect, but leaves a lot of information out that is necessary for connection.

By the way, Conal, I'm wondering whether you have it on your mind, that moralistic judgements are wrong and bad. The way I see you looking for it triggers some discomfort in me from time to time and I understand, that this is related to my values of openness, curiosity and empathy, that I'd like to stay in touch with. I wonder if you are. Would you tell me, what comes up for you?

Curiosly
Niklas
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

[Angela Harms]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Craig Sones Cornell <st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:

It is hard to have a core value that does not lead to
judgment is it not? The Christians express this as love the sinner,
hate the sin.

Craig, I don't think it's hard, actually. And I think that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a tragic misinterpretation of NVC. At the heart of it, I think we can have more.

See, I don't see any sin. Even if you replace 'sin' with 'wrong action' or 'bad behavior,' I don't believe it. I see mistakes--actions that get in the way of meeting my needs, but those aren't wrong. They're just... unskillful.

If I were to try to climb a tree, and try one branch only to have it fail, there would be no shame, no judgement. Only discernment: that branch was too small (or brittle, or whatever). It's the same in life.

Mistakes are blessings, and no cause for shame, or anger, or any other type of judgment. Just learning.

Angela

[John Mudie]

I have two stuffed animals, a giraffe and a jackal .

 

As a motif for my practice group, I have the giraffe kissing the jackal.

 

J

 

---

[Robert Wentworth]

What do folks think is the difference between a moral judgment and a
value judgment?

Some possibilities...

Moral judgments are tied to a story that someone deserves to be
rewarded or punished, whereas value judgments are tied to identifying
what one longs for.

Moral judgments are tied to a story that there is an absolute truth,
outside of oneself, as to whether something is desirable or not. Value
judgments are owned as reflecting what we ourselves value, though they
may come with a story that the value is "universal" and so on some
level likely to be valued by all.

Thoughts?

Bob

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Robert,

To clarify your question in my mind, are you asking how we understand Marshall to use the terms "moral judgment" vs "value judgment"?  Or maybe whether folks here have personal meanings attached to the terms?

  - Conal

[Niklas Wilkens]

Hey Bob,

glad to read you.

I have another take on this, although it matches with what you said. What I long for, what I value, what's alive in me depends on the perspective I'm taking. What am I looking at? And what am I taking into consideration? What's the situation like? From there I will make a decision of what would help me to reach a certain goal or not. There's a context. And my decisions, views, feelings, thoughts and goals are dependent on that context.

Behind making a moral judgement lies the assumption that everyone shares the same context, everywhere and any time. And of course, what I value will be important from the context that I see myself in. But since everyone's perspective is slightly different, applying my judgement to everyone else will invariably lead me to missing the mark. Not only is the context, that others live in, different from mine, also my own context changes over time, from minute to minute, so that what worked for me then, doesn't have to work for me now necessarily.

A value judgement would therefore be more complete than a moral judgement by adding information about the perspective from which it is taken. In that spirit, for example, I won't say that people who voted for McCain are absolutely stupid, because what they did, only doesn't make sense to me from the point of view I happen to assume. Assuming McCain represents someone to them, who shares points of views about what needs to be done and how to best protect oneself, obviously McCain is the better option when that is the frame of reference. And since everything always depends on a frame of reference, instead of making absolute judgements, it appears to me to be much more helpful to ask the question: "From what point of view would this be the logical conclusion? From what perspective would this behavior make sense to me?" I learn much more and can take part in other people's realitiy, which is, in its core, the hallmark of connection. Asking that question is what empathy is about. And value judgement, thus defined, invite this attitude, while moral judgements cut the awareness short.

Thoughts?
Niklas

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:28:51 -0500
> Von: Robert Wentworth <b...@wentworth.bz>
> An: nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
> Betreff: Re: "moral value"?

--
"Feel free" - 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS/Monat ...
Jetzt GMX ProMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail

[Robert Wentworth]

I think I could be interested in either. Looking back over this thread, I see the terms used, and I'm not sure how to draw the line between "how Marshall uses the terms" and personal meanings in the various postings. Does your question mean that you understand these ideas differently than the way you believe Marshall does?

My sense is that it is generally understood that using a "moral judgment" is likely to be less skillful in creating what one wants than is using "value judgments." I want to unpack what the difference between these two types of judgment actually is, as a way of understanding why one would be expected to be less skillful.

(I note that Niklas offered that moralistic judgments lack awareness of "how this judgment came about" and "tends to be leaving out a whole lot of information", which resonates with me as part of what is at issue.)

Does this add any clarity?

Bob

[Conal Elliott]

Hi Bob,

What do folks think is the difference between a moral judgment and a value judgment?

I was puzzling over your question and the inner dissonance I felt while reading it.  I guess my dissonance came from a literal reading, like moral & value judgments are things in themselves, and the question is what's the difference between them.  My clarification question was to find out if my literal reading was what you meant or more like my later guesses that you were really asking about how understand Marshall to use the terms or how--and whether--we use them ourselves.

I don't use the latter term myself, and I guess I'm worried about it being used as a way to cloak moral judgment (absolutist thinking) about either people or actions.  I had understood some of the earlier content on this thread, and much NVC practice & teaching, as such a cloak, and I'm ouchy-sensitive on the topic.

Instead of using "moral judgments" vs "value judgments", I like to distinguish between, for instance, saying that "lying is wrong" vs saying that lying in a particular situation had a particular detrimental effect (in addition to its beneficial effects).  When I hear statements like "XYZ doesn't meet my need for honesty", I generally suspect moralistic thinking cloaked in judgment.  And when the speaker is someone who teaches NVC to others, I'm particularly sad.

Now some might advise (as before) that I listen to the person's feelings and needs past my own interpretations and their possibly cloaked judgment.  Please everyone, hold any such advice.  I'm making these remarks (as before) as aids to whomever is interested in taking key distinctions deeper in their own practice and teaching of NVC.

  - Conal

P.S. Usually, I get notified immediately of posts for moderating.  Apparently not with the last two on this thread (Niklas's and Bob's) of November 10 and 12.

[Niklas Wilkens]

Hey Conal,

I certainly resonate with looking at what would be meant by moral or value judgment, as opposed to assuming that these are actual things that have a difference, independent from a specific point of view.

Ideally I'd like a conversation to be like this: There's a situation and different people look at it from different angles. When someone speaks about his or her experiences with the matter, it would be most enjoyable and least confusing, if this person was to indicate the relativity of his or her point of view. This would not only allow others to stay in touch with their own perspective, but also to appreciate the possible differences in experience not as something threatening but as something enriching and exciting. That way real connection becomes possible, which I understand as "sharing reality" - having a felt sense of how it is to be that other person in a given situation without losing one's own.

In my understanding "value judgement" the way Marshall uses it, is an attempt to include the relativity between statement and point of view, while moral judgement omits this relationship. To be clear, this is what I think Marshall means by it. At the same time I still wouldn't use the terms, since I don't assume that many people would be familiar with these differences.

To answer Bob's question: the skill concerned here would be awareness of how a certain statement comes about and the ability to communicate this. So in a value judgement, thus defined, this would be included. I'm aware that this resembles what I've said before, but still I hope that it adds to clarity.

> "When I hear statements like "XYZ doesn't meet my need for honesty",
> I generally suspect moralistic thinking cloaked in judgment.

I agree. I wouldn't infer from that an awareness of how somebody's statement evaluated as dishonest truly affects that person's life. And if someone were to inspire my compassion, I would like to see that. I would like to see what is meaningful for this person and in what way my giving out a certain information would have contributed. That would allow me to get a grasp of the other's situation and how it feels to be there.

Tell me, what you think.
Cheers
Niklas

P.S.: Thanks for letting me know that you didn't get the notification for moderation when I wrote my note. I was worried that you might not even have considered to pass it through.


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:45:48 -0800

> Von: "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net>
> An: nvc-e...@googlegroups.com

> Betreff: Re: "moral value"?

--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

[Conal Elliott]

... moralistic thinking cloaked in judgment.

Oops.  I meant to say:

When I hear statements like "XYZ doesn't meet my need for honesty", I generally suspect moralistic thinking cloaked in NVC language.

[Irmtraud Kauschat]

Hi there,

to me honesty is a need I can only have for myself, meet and fulfill myself - like authenticity and autonomy.

If I think someone doesn't say what I think the truth is then my need for connection is not met - because I am thinking something about the other one and maybe the other one is thinking something about me.

If I say, my need for honesty is not met by someone - for me that is cloaked demand - be honest!

On value judgement: as far as I understand that is about what is life-serving: for example: these mushrooms are poisonous.

Irmtraud

--- Conal Elliott <co...@conal.net> schrieb am Fr, 21.11.2008:

> Von: Conal Elliott <co...@conal.net>
> Betreff: Re: "moral value"?

> An: nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
> Datum: Freitag, 21. November 2008, 3:10
> >
> > ... moralistic thinking cloaked in judgment.
> >
>
> Oops. I meant to say:
>
> When I hear statements like "XYZ doesn't meet my
> need for honesty", I

> > generally suspect moralistic thinking *cloaked in NVC
> languag*e.