[diggan]

> try to honor our shared values and act accordingly

What "shared values"? Most of the values people hold as "important" has people on the other side with the opposite values, and both of those are "correct".

There are no "shared values" that all humans agreed upon.

[nelsnelson]

Seems like a not difficult and quite worthwhile exercise to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them. Maybe that's what OP is talking about. Why be obtuse about shared values?

[ptero]

Because historically it has never been done. The closest we got is when a group (religious or political) finds something most people somewhat agree with, declares it a universal value and proceeds to suppress, drive away or eliminate those evil people who do not share it.

It is much better to define acceptable boundaries on actions and let people believe what they want if their actions do not violate those agreed on boundaries.

[Bengalilol]

Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world. Your comment certainly doesn't fit the way this country handles its citizens. There is the Law, the "what is tolerated" and what isn't. That's the "boundaries on actions". But any malicious mind won't bow down to those intentional principles.

[ptero]

What is a "malicious mind"?

People absolutely heed laws that they find personally inconvenient but are afraid of the penalties (parking restrictions, paying taxes, loud music and that is not even stepping into hot button topics).

The reason Swiss stayed democratic is likely not because they share universal, similarly understood values, but because they feel that their system that only defines acceptable norms is working okay as is.

[fakeBeerDrinker]

I don’t believe that Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world, but I could be mistaken. Iceland has had a democratic-ish parliament since the 900s[0].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing

[Bengalilol]

You are right. And there is San Marino too. I had to write “the oldest direct democracy still alive”.

[diggan]

> to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them

Please do try this, I've tried it in the past, and always been able to come up with counter-examples to whatever I came up with. It's surprisingly hard.

"Always be kind" is one example that for me should obviously be shared with everyone, but it's almost disgustingly easily to come up with whole cultures or countries where this is actively seen as a "bad thing" because of reason X and Y, or has to have exceptions because of Z.

[nelsnelson]

In practice there are always exceptions to everything. You don't be kind to murderers, for instance.

Kindness isn't really a value, though.

Shared values are simply things that people decide are important for a society to function as well as possible. Respect for human life and dignity, for example. Good thing right? How many mental gymnastics does somebody have to go through to find some exception to that?

Tell you what though, if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity, I am absolutely going to avoid that person and shun them from any kind of society that I am a part of.

[diggan]

> You don't be kind to murderers, for instance.

Why not? I think everyone deserves kindness, and I'm not alone in thinking that.

So even something that for me is obvious, it isn't as obvious for everyone.

> Respect for human life and dignity, for example

It's very generic, and subjective, which again leads me to believe not everyone would agree on what it means.

For example, does "respect for human life" mean you should let people live where they currently live, if they and their family lived there for 100 years say? Lots of Israeli settlers would disagree with that, but for me that would be a sign that someone doesn't have "respect for human life".

> if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity

Of course everyone will say "Yeah, of course I do!", but where the rubber meets the dirt is how people define that. Not being kind to people who made mistakes for example, wouldn't be "respecting human life" for me, but you might disagree, as you think we shouldn't be kind to people who committed murders, but you would still claim you "respect human life".

[nelsnelson]

This is suddenly a too-online conversation. Please do go be always kind to murderers. Society is definitely better off without anybody agreeing to value respect for human life and dignity -- just so generic and subjective! Too hard to get anybody to agree on what that even means!

[diggan]

I'm glad the point seemed to have come across! :)

[Bengalilol]

Sharing is not agreeing. I can share values with someone I don't agree with. Switzerland has shared values for instance, it is a country build upon that principle. I bet every society has some. Humans too.

[ptero]

All people or most? If most, where is the threshold (0.1%, 1%, 10%?) for those whose values we can ignore and what should we do with those pesky people who do not share otherwise common values?

[Bengalilol]

Do you know Switzerland and its democratic system? I am referring to those shared values that are enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution:

Freedom, Human dignity, Equality, Democracy, Multilingualism and cultural diversity, Federalism, Solidarity. (that is not an exhaustive list).

[ptero]

Those are great words. The problems start when we try turning those into actionable definitions. That is, defining what kind of freedom citizens have and when the government starts putting pressure on those who step outside those definitions.

[reliabilityguy]

> There are no "shared values" that all humans agreed upon.

Murder is bad?

Stealing is bad?

[diggan]

> Murder is bad?

Sure, lots of countries agree with this. But bunch of countries still have "death penalty", even one that is usually heralded as the "Savior of the West" still has judicial murders.

Besides, if everyone agreed "murder is bad" we wouldn't have wars, so obviously not everyone agrees with that.

> Stealing is bad?

This I don't even agree with 100%, depends on the context. You're starving while someone else is hoarding food for themselves for no particular reason? Totally justifiable to steal food from them to survive.

War argument kind of fits with this one too, clearly not everyone agrees stealing is bad.

[DaSHacka]

Think most murderers or thiefs would agree about those?

[bdangubic]

for me and you? sure! for all humans? nope