A HANDBOOK FOR VALUES EDUCATION TEACHERS

What is value?
There are two senses in which we may use the word value: (1)
in reference to the values someone possesses, as when we
criticize someone for possessing the wrong values, and (2) in
reference to the value something possesses, as when we talk of
the value of a job.
What do we mean when we talk of the values people
possess?
Usually, when we talk of the values people possess, we refer to
what they think will bring them happiness.
Some people think money will bring them happiness: they value
wealth. Others think popularity will make them happy: they
value fame. Still others are happy when they can order people
around: they value power.
We talk of people having values and not simply a value. We
imply that for most people happiness comes from many things
and not just one.
The values a person possesses are usually the reason why a
person values particular things. His values are not particular
things themselves, but something that those particular things
would help him attain.
Wealth, fame, and power are not particular things, but they
come from particular things. Wealth can come from having
many lands, or it may come from investments, or it may come
from having a lot of cash in the bank. Someone who values
wealth may decide to gather wealth from all of these three
sources.
Someone may be famous for having done something patriotic
or for having set a record (like eating the most hamburgers in
three minutes) or for assassinating a president: someone who
values fame may not care what his fame is based on so long as
he is famous.
Power, like wealth and fame, can come in many ways. For
someone who values power, it may not matter what sort of
power he has: the important thing for him is that he has power.
Values are like goals, and they may act like goals for a time in a
persons life. But they are not goals because goals cease to be
goals once they are attained, but values do not cease to be
values once we possess things that bear them. Otherwise, we
would throw away those things.
Wealth may be my goal while I am poor. Once I am rich, it
ceases to be my goal. On the other hand, I may believe that
wealth brings happiness; in other words, I value wealth.
Because of this, I try my best to become rich, but once I am
rich, if wealth does make me happy, then I will continue to
value wealth.
The values a person possesses will lead him to like certain
things or persons and dislike others. In other words, values give
rise to attitudes to particular things or persons.
Thus, someone who values honors may like joining contests and
dislike good competitors. Thus, someone who values health
may be attracted to health foods and may not like late night
activities that reduce his hours of sleep. Thus, someone who
values beauty may like reading about new cosmetics and avoid
fattening foods.
The attitudes we have towards things give rise in turn to
actions: we go after those things to which we have a positive
attitude and avoid those to which we have a negative attitude.

So the young man who values honors may enter a contest in

which he feels he has a chance of winning, and the old man
who values health may refuse invitations to late night parties,
and the woman who values beauty may spend a lot on the
cosmetics she thinks will make her more beautiful.
In sum, values give rise to attitudes that in turn give rise to
action.
If someone says he has a value, but does not exhibit the
attitudes that go with that value, chances are he does not have
that value. If he does not act in a manner consistent with that
value, then we say he does not have it.
We link values to action.
If we had to judge what someones values were and were given
a choice between interviewing that person about his values and
observing his behavior, we would probably choose the latter, or
if we chose the former, we would interview the person about his
values, but confirm what he says by observing his behavior, and
if there was a conflict between what a person says his values
are and what his behavior reveals them to be, we would
probably trust the latter more.
Are all actions traceable to values possessed by the
person acting?
This is the assumption of Values Education.
This is certainly the case in deliberate actions, actions in which
we know what we are doing and want to do what we are doing.
Every action has a motivation, and every motivation may be
traced to a value of the person, his idea of what will bring him
happiness.
However, even non-deliberate actions may be traced to values.
A person who reacts spontaneously with dislike towards another
person may not even be aware of his reaction, and yet his
reaction may be ultimately traceable to a value.
Is there any other sense of value when we talk of the
values people possess?
Sometimes, we say someones values are his family or his boss
or some other person or group of persons. When we say this,
we mean that what makes that person happy is whatever would
make his family or his boss or some other person or group of
persons happy.
If someones values were his only son and if that son was fond
of bodybuilding, he would be willing to buy all the bodybuilding
equipment his son would ask for, no matter how expensive this
might be. If someones values were his boss and if his boss was
fond of golf, he might be willing to give up weekends with his
family to accompany his boss to the golf course. If someones
values were his wife and if she insisted on his giving up
smoking, he would give up smoking, no matter how hard this
might be for him.
Someone whose values are other people identifies his
happiness with the happiness of those people, such that he is
willing to sacrifice himself or things that he loves for their sake.
We say that he lives for those people.
What do we mean when we talk about the value persons,
animals, plants, or things possess?
Usually, when we talk about the value or things possess, we
refer to the benefit they could give us.
Thus, we may value a driver for his good driving or we may
value a pet cockatoo for the amusement it gives us or we may
value a book for its contents, for the instruction it can give us.

Are the values people possess related in any way to the

value that persons, animals, plants, or things have for
them?
Yes. This relationship is grasped more easily by first observing
that the values we possess are ends, meaning to say, what we
wish to achieve through actions. The persons, animals, plants,
or things we value, on the other hand, are what we act on in
order to attain our ends.
For example, a person may value friendship with a particular
person. He values time spent with his friend (or friend-to-be).
Friendship is one of the values of the person, and he values
time spent with his friend because it strengthens their
friendship.
The value of the person, animal, plantor thing we value is its
relationship to one of the ends in our mind, to one of our values:
the person, animal, or thing is seen as a means to attain one of
our ends.
We value persons, animals, plants, or things ultimately because
of the values we possess. Or to put it another way: the value
persons, animals, plants, or things have for us is ultimately
determined by the values we possess. The word ultimately in
this explanation is a reminder that the values we possess may
result not only in isolated actions but also in chains of actions,
what we call a chain of events.
This is a very complex topic. Let us take the example of the
driver valued for his good driving. Let us assume he drives for a
family. Let us further assume that he is valued because he gets
people quickly and safely where they want to go. If he is valued
for his safe driving, it is because people value their lives and
the lives of their loved ones. If he is valued for getting people
quickly to their destination, there could be various reasons why
he is valued for this: perhaps people value their time and do not
wish to waste it in transit, or perhaps people wish to spend a
longer time where they are going and so wish to get there early,
or perhaps people wish to finish an errand fast so that they can
do another in the short time available to them. Each of these
reasons may be traced back to the values of the person who
values the driver.
Is the value we see in a person, animal, plant, or thing
part of it?
No. The value we see in a person, animal, plant, or thing is not
a part of it. It does not form part of what a person, animal,
plant, or thing is. It is, we might say, added to what the person,
animal, plant, or thing is. Who makes the addition? The valuer.
The value we see in a person, animal, plant, or thing is a
relationship between the person, animal, plant, or thing on the
one hand and the person who values on the other. The
relationship is one of benefit or harm to the person who values.
The case of manmade things, however, is special. Here we have
things that have been made for specific purposes, as for
example furniture or vehicles or weapons. The value of
manmade things is their usefulness, which is the very purpose
for which they have been made.
The human being can make things designed to have a particular
value because the values he possesses are not linked to
particular things. In fact, he can isolate whatever that is in a
person, animal, plant, or thing which makes it valuable to make
a new thing or to develop the person, animal, or plant.
Thus, persons can train to be soldiers or runners, developing a
particular value in their bodies; horses can be raised to do farm
work or to run races; and special strains of rice can be
developed having more of a certain nutrient than other strains.
Are values unique to human beings?

2
No. Just as human beings possess values, so do animals: when
chickens eat worms and dogs flee fire, they act as they do
because of the values they possess. Animals possess values by
instinct, in contrast to human beings. The values of the animal
have to do directly with its survival, or more precisely the
survival of its species. As in the case of human beings, the
value that an animal grasps in another animal or, say, a plant is
a relationship of benefit or harm to it and its species.
Which of the two senses of value is the Values Education
teacher interested in?
The Values Education teacher is interested above all in the first
sense. He is interested in the values his students possess.
Should everyone possess the same values?
If the values people possess are whatever people think will
bring them happiness, then the question is the same as asking
whether for all people the same things bring happiness.
Put this way, the question seems ridiculous, since it is obvious
that different people think different things bring them
happiness.
Earlier we saw examples of the person who seeks happiness in
wealth or the one who seeks it in fame or another who seeks it
in power.
A better question is whether we can even claim that happiness
comes from only one thing.
Can it be claimed that happiness comes from only one
thing?
In fact, this is the claim of philosophers (on whose work Values
Education depends), but they phrase their claim in this way:
Perfect happiness can come only from the perfect good.
Note the adjective perfect that modifies happiness. The
philosophers imply that imperfect happiness can come from
many different things, but perfect happiness from only one
thing. Note as well what they call what brings happiness. They
call it a good. This is what some philosophers now call
value. More importantly, note the adjective modifying good:
perfect. What perfect happiness and perfect good mean
are explained below.
Can people be mistaken about what brings happiness?
The answer to this question seems equally obvious, since it is
easy to cite examples of people who have been disappointed
regarding what they thought would bring them happiness. We
are not saying that what these people were completely
mistaken about what they thought would bring them happiness.
Rather, we are saying that the happiness it brought them did
not last or was not completely satisfying.
There are people who have sought happiness in wealth and
have achieved it and yet are sad. The same thing can be said
about people who have sought it in fame and power.
Happiness and what brings happiness is the subject matter of
Values Education.
What do philosophers say about happiness?
They say, to begin with, that it is what all human beings seek.
It is because of this that we value above all things what we
believe will bring us happiness.
Secondly, they say that happiness comes with possessing
something good.
Philosophers call anything that brings happiness to a person a
good. This is a technical term. It does not mean that anything
that brings happiness is morally good, that is, in conformity
with the moral law.

Thirdly, they say that happiness, to be perfect, must be both

lasting and complete, that it never end and be completely
satisfying.
Fourthly, perfect happiness can come only from the perfect
good.
On the basis of what philosophers say, what values will
not bring us perfect happiness?
First of all, whatever can be lost. The happiness these would
bring would be precarious, and our enjoyment of them would be
mixed with worry.
Examples of things that bring happiness and can be lost are:
wealth, power, fame, and honors.
Secondly, whatever does not last. Our enjoyment of them would
inevitably end up in disappointment.
Examples of things that bring happiness but do not last are:
pleasure, which is typically fleeting, and anything that belongs
to the body, such as health, strength, and beauty.
What is the perfect good?
The perfect good is the good that does not cease to be. It is
therefore not physical or material. It is infinite. It is spiritual.
Philosophers identify the perfect good with God.
In this sense, God is the highest value of someone in search of
perfect happiness.
If God is the highest value a human being can have, does
this mean that Values Education is really religious
education?
No. Religious education is about God and the duties of the
human being to him. Values Education is not about this. It does
not teach students who God is and what they owe him. Values
Education is about happiness and the values human beings
should have in order to attain it. It just so happens that the
value that will bring perfect happiness is God. Values Education
does not say who this God is. It is religion who says who God is,
and different religions may say different things about who God
is. They also say some things that are similar, if not identical,
about God.
It should be possible to teach Values Education to people of
different religions. What Values Education teaches about God
are things the human mind can figure out for itself. What
religions teach about God is usually things the human mind
cannot figure out for itself and need to be revealed. What the
human mind can figure out for itself about God is very little. It
needs religion to complete what it finds out. Values Education
needs Religion to complete what it says about happiness and
values.
How can God be possessed?
There are three ways in which a human being can possess
something: (a) physically, (b) the way of knowledge and love,
and (c) as a habit.
An example of physical possession is when we have a thing in
our hands.
Of these three types of possession obviously the first does not
apply to God since God is not physical or material. Between the
two types left, the third is possession of something that is a part
of the person. It is the second type that is possession of
something different from the person possessing.
When we know something, our knowledge of it is within us and
cannot be lost from us, unless we somehow forget it. What we
know, however, is not a part of us. The same thing is true of
love: our love is within us and cannot be lost from us, unless we
ourselves turn away from the person we love. At the same time,
the person we love is not a part of us. On the other hand, When

3
we have a habit, that habit is a part of us (the philosopher
would say it is a modification of us), so much so that we
sometimes call it second nature.
Philosophy tells us that the direct knowledge and love of God
bring perfect happiness, but direct knowledge of God cannot
happen in this life.
Direct knowledge of God means seeing him face to face.
Reading about God (for example, reading the Bible) or
considering what he must be is not the same as direct
knowledge. While direct knowledge of God is not possible in this
life, true love of God is. This is because it is possible to start
loving someone with just a minimum information about her or
him, even if one has never met the other person. There are
enough stories about such cases.
What must we do in this life to see God directly in the
afterlife?
Different religions give different answers to this question. What
philosophy tells us (and it is really little) is that we should love
God as much as we can in this life.
This answer is based partly on human experience. The most
intense form of seeing is that of the lover gazing at the beloved.
If we want to see God in order to be happy and not merely out
of curiosity, then we should love him, and if we want to be very
happy, then we must be able to see him very intently. To do so,
we must love him as much as we can.
Virtue makes it easier for us to follow moral norms and enables
us to love God strongly.
What must we do to love God as best we can in this life?
Once again different religions give different answers to this
question, and once again what philosophy tells us is little: (1)
we must observe moral norms, and (2) we must cultivate virtue.
Moral norms are discovered by reason. They keep a person from
destroying his own humanity through his own acts. Virtue helps
a person fulfill the moral norms. They enhance a persons
humanity, and they strengthen his capacity to love.
Can we consider the moral norms and virtue values?
Strictly speaking, the moral norms cannot make us happy, and
so they cannot be considered values. However, following the
moral norms can make us happy. When someone follows the
moral norms habitually, we say he has the virtue of prudence.
Prudence is a value.
Prudence is a virtue. The other virtues can likewise help us
possess God. Thus, the virtues are values.
Sometimes, practicing a virtue may make a person sad, as
when a student decides not to go out with friends in order to
study. He studies because it is his duty, but he does not feel
good about having to stay at home. When practicing a virtue
makes us sad, it is a sign that we do not yet have that virtue
perfectly. When we have a virtue perfectly, we are happy
practicing that virtue. With more practice, we get to perfect a
virtue. This is like a runner training for a race. In the beginning,
running causes him much pain and fatigue, but with constant
practice the pain and fatigue may disappear.
What does it mean to have virtue as a basic value?
It means prizing goodness above all things and pursuing it
throughout ones life.
It means valuing action based on thinking rather than feeling.
It means valuing the good of others as much as ones own
good.
It means valuing friendship.

4
It means avoiding vice.
Should God and virtue be the only values human beings
should have?
No. Aside from virtue, there are other values that can help us
attain God, and so these would be good to have as well.
Furthermore, any values that help us to be better human beings
are good to have.
What other values aside from virtue help us to attain
God?
Aside from virtue, knowledge of the truth and seeking the good
of others help us to attain God.
What does it mean to have knowledge of the truth as a
value?
It means prizing the truth above all things and pursuing it
throughout ones life.
It means valuing the intellect and its use.
It means valuing sources of truth, such as books and wise men.
It means avoiding prejudice, subjectivism, and emotionalism.
It means avoiding anything that can impair thinking, such as
drink, drugs, excessive eating or excessive sexual activity.
It means avoiding distractions to the intellect, such as certain
types of music, noise, and certain video material.
It means cultivating friendship with the wise and learned.
What does it mean to consider seeking the good of
others a value?
It means thinking only about the people with whom we live and
work.
It means valuing their goodness and happiness.
Who are the other people whose good we may seek?
First of all, there is ones own family.
Secondly, the people with whom one lives and works.
Thirdly, the political community to which one belongs.
This can have several levels, e.g., city, province, region,
country.
Fourthly, there is all humanity.
Isnt the person who seeks happiness by living his life
for others vulnerable to disappointment if and when the
persons he lives for reject him or at least do not love
him back?
Yes, he is, but if he loves others for the sake of God, then it is
really God that he loves and God will never reject him and will
always love him back.
Can we call these three values the basic values that all
human beings should have?
We certainly can.
If a person wants to be happy in this life by means of something
that cannot get lost because it is a part of him and with the
least danger of his happiness being short-lived, then he should
value truth and virtue.
The wisdom of the wise man is something he possesses within
him, and if he does not give up his studies or if he considers
what he knows from time to time, he will not lose his
knowledge. The virtue of the good man is likewise something he
possesses. It is a habit, and if he continually does works of
virtue, he will not lose his virtue.

Similarly, a person who lives for the good of others is able to do

so because of his love for them. If he struggles to increase his
love daily by doing everything he does out of love for them,
then his love will not die and will instead continually grow.
Possessing these three values, however, does not mean that we
will be perfectly happy in this life.
Why is it not possible to have perfect happiness in this
life?
It is not possible to have perfect happiness in this life because it
is impossible to eliminate suffering, pain, and death completely.
Are there other values that human beings should
possess, aside from the three basic values?
Thomas Aquinas gives three conditions of happiness in this life:
(1) health, (2) wealth, and (3) the assistance of other people.
These are conditions of happiness in this life in the sense that,
in order to do many things including those we wish to do to
make us happy in this life, we need health, material things, and
the assistance of other people. To each of these conditions
corresponds a value, two of them with names identical to the
conditions to which they correspond: wealth, health, and
society.
By society is meant people living together in a community.
There are two societies to which human beings belong: the
family and the political community. (Christians make up another
society called the universal Church. Believers of other religions
may also form other societies.)
There are people who believe that perfect happiness consists in
any of these three conditions or in a combination of two of them
or in all three.
They are very careful about keeping healthy, and this is their
main concern all their life. Or they dedicate themselves to the
accumulation of wealth. Or they spend their lives for their
family or their country.
Since these values correspond only to conditions of happiness
in this life, they are subordinate to the basic values that are
directly concerned with perfect happiness.
What does it mean to subordinate these values to the
basic values?
It means two things: (a) that we may seek to be healthy or
wealthy or to live in society, but never at the expense of truth,
virtue, or the good of other people, and (b) that we seek to be
healthy or wealthy or to live in society in order to help us in our
pursuit of truth, virtue, or the good of others.
It would be good for someone to take care of his health, but not
to spend so much time doing so; otherwise, he may hardly have
any free time left for intellectual activities or he may neglect his
duties or refuse to help friends in need. On the other hand, he
should try to be healthy so that he may pursue truth, do
virtuous acts, and help others.
Are there other values that would be good to possess?
The value of health reveals to us the value of nutrition and
exercise. The value of wealth reveals to us the value of work.
The value of society reveals to us the value of governance and
obedience.
Besides these, there are many other values that would be good
to possess.
Can we arrange these values in a hierarchy?
Certainly. At the top of the hierarchy would be God as the
supreme value, the one source of perfect happiness.

After God would come virtue, knowledge of the truth, and the
good of others.
After these three would come health, wealth, and society.
After these three would come nutrition and exercise, work and
technology, and communication.
We may call God as value and the values coming immediately
below him personal values. We may call the other values
natural values.
The personal values have happiness in the afterlife as their
goal, while the natural values have happiness in this life as their
goal.
The natural values are conditions for happiness in this life, not
in the next. It is possible to attain happiness in the afterlife even
without health, wealth, or the assistance of other people (as in
the case of someone abandoned or persecuted by society).
What is the difference between the personal value of the
good of others and the natural value of society?
The personal value of the good of others is based on the
appreciation of the dignity of the human being. Someone who
has this value gives himself to anyone and everyone, because
human beings are persons. The natural value of the family on
the part of the parents is based on the desire to have ones own
children; on the part of the children, it is based on their
dependence on their parents while they are not adults and on
gratitude once they are adults. The natural value of the political
community is based on the desire to promote ones welfare and
the welfare of his family. Someone who possesses the value of
the family or the value of the political community gives himself
to the family or the political community, but not necessarily to
people who are not members of his family or his political
community.
Does this hierarchy have any repercussion on our
actions?
Yes. If there should ever be a conflict between the natural
values and personal values, the personal values should prevail.
If we have to choose between making an illegal deal that would
give us millions and giving up that chance to get rich, then we
should choose to give up that chance.
The truth is, however, that when we go against the personal
values, we also pave the way for unhappiness in this life, if not
soon after, then sometime later. In other words, when we
pursue happiness in the afterlife, we pursue happiness in this
life as well.
After making an illegal deal and getting my millions, I may find
that my conscience bothers me. Or I may be chased by the law.
Or I may live in fear of being discovered.
The opposite is not true, however: If someone deliberately
pursues only happiness in this life, he is certainly not pursuing
happiness in the next, particularly if he deliberately rejects God
as a value.
Can a spiritual value and a natural value inspire the
same action?
Yes. I may, for example, eat, and this would be in line with the
value of nutrition, but as I eat I observe the virtue of
temperance. So in one action I follow two kinds of values.
Or I may help the poor, and this would be in line with the value
of seeking the good of others, a spiritual value, but as I help
them, I help the society to which they belong, a natural value.
Consequently, we may pursue both happiness in this life and
happiness in the afterlife at the same time in a single action.

5
The two kinds of values (personal and natural) do not mean that
the human being leads two lives at the same time. He leads
only one life, his life, in the world, but as he goes about his life
in the world, the truth inspires and guides him, he tries to do
everything he does virtuously, and he strives to have the good
of other people in mind, if not as immediate beneficiaries of his
actions, then at least as the ultimate beneficiaries (in other
words, he acts with a spirit of service). In short, the personal
values affect the way he acts and his intentions. Religion guides
him in relating directly with his Maker, and pleasing God is the
ultimate intention of everything he does.
How do we acquire values?
By experience or by instruction.
Instruction can happen in many varied ways: the example of
others, readings, the mass media, stories heard from other
people, the places in which one lives and works.
Every value has two components: knowledge and wanting.
Virtue as value is composed of (1) the knowledge that virtue
brings happiness and (2) wanting to be virtuous. Wealth as
value is composed of (1) the knowledge that wealth can be
used to serve the poor and (2) wanting to serve the poor with
ones wealth. Obedience as value is composed of (1) the
knowledge that obedience is an important part of governance
and (2) wanting to be obedient to political authorities.
The knowledge component is always knowledge of something
as good, and the wanting component always consists of
wanting that good thing.
Knowledge comes before wanting, because we cannot want
what we do not know, but wanting has to come after
knowledge; otherwise, there is no value.
How do we acquire the knowledge component of the
value?
The knowledge component of the value can come in two forms:
in the form of ideas or in the form of images.
Fame brings happiness: this statement expresses the
knowledge component of a value in the form of ideas. A picture
of a smiling popular movie star may express the same
component.
Similarly, the idea that power brings happiness may be
conveyed by a novel.
An ad of a good-looking model could communicate the idea that
beauty brings happiness.
We can acquire the knowledge component of values in all the
ways we may acquire ideas and images.
Does age make a difference in the acquisition of the
knowledge component of values?
Yes, it does with regard to knowledge in the form of ideas.
Before the age of reason, the child acquires only natural values,
since acquisition of natural values does not depend on the use
of reason, while acquisition of personal values does. Upon
reaching the age of reason, the child begins acquiring personal
values.
The acquisition of personal values keeps pace with the stages of
intellectual development. At every stage, progress is made with
regard to truth, virtue, and the good of others. The human
being deepens in his understanding and practice of prudence
with every new stage.
The Stage of Simple Apprehension (ages 7 to 10) is the right
stage at which to focus on the value of temperance.

6
The Stage of Articulated Apprehensions (ages 11 to 14) is the
right stage at which to focus on the value of fortitude.
The Stage of Concepts (ages 15 to 18) is the right stage at
which to focus on the value of justice.
The Stage of Philosophical Concepts (age 19 up) is the right
stage at which to focus on the value of friendship. It is probably
only at this stage that the human being is first able to articulate
for himself the values that will rule his life and their relations
with one another.
Can we acquire values unconsciously?
Yes, it happens all the time, particularly
communication of ideas through images.

through

the

It may occur that TV programs we watch always portray families

with two children at most. The same thing may be true of print
ads that show families. Perhaps before watching the TV
programs and seeing the print ads, we were for having a large
family. After watching the TV programs and seeing the print ads,
however, we may regard having a small family to be better than
having a large one.
This change can happen without our realizing it. Through
exposure to the TV programs and the print ads we get
accustomed to the idea that having a small family is good.
When asked about the size of the family we would like to have,
we reply that we would like to have a small one. It now seems
natural to us.
The unconscious change of values can happen because the
human being is naturally sensitive to the values of people
around him and of the culture of the society in which he lives. It
is natural to want to blend with the people around us and with
the prevailing culture. Thus, unless we strive to be alert, we
could gradually acquire values we might have immediately
rejected, had they been presented plainly to us.
Advertising agencies exploit this characteristic of human beings
in what they call subliminal advertising.
When we talk about the force of example, we are actually
referring to the power of images that we have just described.
Related to the phenomenon of the unconscious acquisition of
values are what we can call unexamined values. These are
opinions widespread among people that we accept and repeat
consciously without examining to see whether they are right or
wrong. Clichs, prejudices, and commonplaces are examples.
Can we possess values of which we are not conscious?
Yes, we can. This is certainly the case of children before the age
of reason, and these values picked up unconsciously in early
childhood subsist in the memory as experiences and in patterns
of behavior we have gotten used to, influencing our behavior
without our realizing it.
This occurs with what we have called natural values, but not
with personal values.
The comparison of human beings and animals with regard to
the acquisition of values is instructive. The animal has a faculty
of valuation by which it instinctively values. The equivalent of
this in the human being is what philosophers call the cogitative
faculty, by which experiences are processed. The child before
reaching the age of reason does not have the intellect to help it
form values, but it has the cogitative faculty. The cogitative
faculty forms values that are pre-rational, meaning to say,
pre-conscious. These are the values we call unconscious.
These values do not disappear once the child reaches the age
of reason, and they continue to function as values, that is, as
shaping attitudes and impelling actions. They may conflict with

the values formed by reason. Persons may need to come to

terms with their pre-rational values. The way to do this is to
examine them in the light of reason and to accept or reject
them.
Even after the age of reason has been reached, the cogitative
faculty continues to form values. We submit these to scrutiny by
reason or simply accept them as they are. When we say that
someone has been de-humanized by cruelty and acts with the
instincts of an animal, we refer to someone who interacts with
others purely on the basis of experience.
The natural values are the human equivalent of the animals
values.
This does not mean that the human being behaves like a robot
or a sleepwalker when he acts under the influence of values he
is not aware of. He is completely aware of what he does, but he
may be less aware of the attitudes behind his action and even
less of the value behind the attitudes.
Does Values Education have a role to play with regard to
the unconscious acquisition of values and the
unconscious possession of them?
Yes, it does. It should alert students to the force of images and
encourage them to analyze the values embedded in images.
This means awakening them to the values hidden in TV shows,
movies, popular songs, fashion, ads, and fads.
It should encourage students to examine their behavior and
listen to feedback from others about it.
Does age make a difference in the acquisition of the
knowledge component of values in the form of images?
Age makes no difference. Through the use of stories or pictures,
knowledge that would ordinarily be too complex for the human
being at particular stages of intellectual development may be
communicated. Even if the images are not well understood,
they abide in the memory and imagination like seeds, waiting
for the right age or circumstances to bear fruit.
Does wanting something good come automatically with
knowing that thing to be good?
No. Knowledge that something is good may be purely
theoretical. In that case, it may not convince the person.
It may also happen that a consequence of accepting a particular
value may be giving up other values that a person does not
want to give up.
This is a major limitation of Values Education.
Is there any way of making someone want something
good?
No. Wanting something good is an act of freedom, but making
someone do something is to go against his freedom. To make
someone want something is the same as forcing someone to
love: it is impossible.
Bribing someone to want something good by means of awards
or prizes is a form of perversion, since the awards or prizes
would probably appeal to values different from the ones we
want the person to acquire.
Is there any best way to teach values?
The best way according to the wisdom of generations is by
example. Example teaches the knowledge component of a
value by images (the sight of the person acting) and
demonstrates besides (a) the rightness of that value in the very
character of that person and (b) how to live according to it by

presenting us with an actual beneficiary of that value, namely,

the person who sets the example.
Other methods teach the knowledge component of a value, but
do not demonstrate that the value is right (that is, that it
actually leads to happiness) or how to live in accordance with
the value. Or they may teach the knowledge component and
demonstrate only one of the two points that example
demonstrates.
Cannot a lecture do everything the example does?
A lecture that attempts to teach a value by means of ideas can
(a) teach the knowledge component of a value, (b) demonstrate
the rightness of that value, and (c) demonstrate how to live
according to it (which is everything we said the example does),
but it does not and cannot do this by presenting a living proof
that the value works.
In the long run, this is the test of a value: whether or not it
can actually bring happiness and happiness that will last. This is
convincingly demonstrated only from real life, because values
are not about a theoretical happiness but real happiness.
There is a very intimate connection between values and truth.
When we personally experience that a value brings only limited
happiness, we either discard it or go in search of another. No
one knowingly fools himself about a value as a road to
happiness if he has personally experienced its limitations,
although someone might deliberately treat a value as though it
could be a source of perfect happiness, even if he knew by
experience that it is not. This is precisely what is called a sin.
Of course, a lecturer could cite an example, and he would do
well to do so.
Is there any second-best way to teach values?
A second-best way to teach values is through stories, because
the structure of imitates human experience with values.
A story is composed of a beginning, middle, and end. In the
human experience with values, the adoption of a value is like
the beginning of a story: it is like the start of a new life. There
follows the persons life in which he lives according to that
value or violates it; this is like the middle of a story. Finally, as a
result of his faithfulness to or violation of the value, the person
experiences happiness or disappointment: this is like the end of
a story. The narrative structure in short makes it easier for the
human being to grasp the point the teacher wants to make
about a value.
The story is, of course, an example of teaching by images.
How can we best use a lecture that teaches by ideas?
A lecture that teaches by ideas should complement or be
complemented by images. Of course, the very life of the
teacher may be the image that complements that teachers
lecture, assuming his students know it. In that case the lecture
does not need to include images.
Otherwise, the lecture with ideas should be reserved for an
older audience, for two reasons: first, because such a lecture
would make sense only to persons at a certain level of
intellectual maturity, and second, because a lecture with ideas
on ethical topics makes sense only if the listener has much
experience to which he can refer to validate the lecture.
In the normal experience of persons, ideas crystallize
experience. For example, after many personal experiences and
after observing many other persons someone might conclude,
Virtue brings happiness. Someone who has never experienced
this or met any person whose life confirms this will probably not
believe such a statement. On the other hand, someone who has
never come to this conclusion may look back to his own
experience or the experience of people he knows and conclude
that the statement is probably right.

Because a lecture with ideas demands intellectual maturity, it

should not be used with students younger than 15 and better
with students of 16 years or older. Since the fifteen-year-old
does not yet have much experience, all the lecturer can be sure
of is that his ideas are understood, not that he has convinced
his listeners. Even then the concepts his young audience can
understand will not be very deep.
What teaching method is best to use with twelve- to
fourteen-year-olds?
Values Education is taught as a subject in the Philippines only in
high school. Most first-year high-school students in the public
schools are twelve or thirteen.
It is best to use images occasionally complemented with ideas
(especially with fourteen-year-olds), but giving images the
burden of the teaching responsibility.
As in the teaching of all subjects, one ought to keep in mind the
intellectual possibilities and limitations of the students: twelveto fourteen-year-olds understand concepts with difficulty, but
they can understand series of facts. This means that they would
understand elaborate and lengthy stories whose plots may be
intricate and whose characters may have complicated
motivations.
They may understand value conflicts, but whether or not they
would know how to unravel them is another thing altogether.
They may need to know principles beyond their age to
understand.
Is there anything else the Values Education teacher
should keep in mind, aside from the intellectual
limitations and possibilities of his students?
It is very important to start where the students are with
regard to the value the teacher wants to teach.
Where the students are determines up to where the teacher
may take his students.
Wherever the teacher takes his students, this must be within
their world.

Refinements:
Values: intentio
Attitudes: consent and choice
Value of society calls for values of language and trust
Kinds of intellectual content: ends, means, intermediate ends
Conditions (health, wealth, society) to do what? Earn a living,
support a family, be a good citizen