From Guest Blogger Eric Chester 

The phrase “Coffee is for Closers” resonates with anyone who’s seen the classic film, Glengarry Glen Ross. This 1992 movie stars six Hollywood A-list leading men as salesman who work for an unethical real estate outfit. The actors portray fast-talking hucksters who lie, exaggerate, and use a series of con games to goad unwitting prospects into signing on the dotted line for overpriced real estate.  (If you haven’t seen the movie, and you have a high tolerance for foul language, here’s the scene that made the “Coffee is for Closers” catchphrase famous and earned Alec Baldwin an Oscar nomination.)

For a summer job while in college, I sold lawn treatment plans (fertilizer) to home owners.  The office environment where I spent evening hours was strikingly similar to the high-pressure sales culture depicted in Glengarry Glen Ross.

My manager was an in-your-face bully who was every bit as intimidating, threatening, and foul-mouthed as Alec Baldwin’s character. I despised him and could not stand his ‘motivational’ techniques. However, I was pretty good at pitching the B.S. (fertilizer was not the only B.S. being pitched), and I made enough money to pay my tuition. So I put up with his degrading tactics for a few summer months.

Reflecting on this experience, I have to admit that it did cement within me the one fundamental principle  I now realize applies to every business in America: CIFC (Coffee is for Closers).  Although my manager never used those exact words, he burned into my brain that the company’s coffee (money) was reserved exclusively for closers (producers), and that if I wasn’t constantly producing a tangible value that was exponentially higher than the amount printed on my weekly paycheck, I would be terminated.

Commission-based salespeople may be the only ones who fully understand and wholeheartedly accept the CIFC principle, but they are not the only ones to whom it applies.  Unless you’re in a government job, work for a non-profit organization, or are protected by a labor union, the CIFC principle applies for you.  Even though I’m self employed, it very much applies to me.

The CIFC Principle Hasn’t Failed, We’ve Just Failed to Relay the Principle

Because the CIFC principle can come off as harsh and negative, today’s parents and educators have neglected to alert their children and/or students that it is still the core of every business.  They’ve instead chosen to advise them to “follow their dreams,” “find a job they love,” and “do only that which makes them happy.”

Thinking they’ve set young people on a journey towards career happiness, what these well-intending adults have actually done is send millions of young people into the workforce with the misguided perception that they are entitled to their “coffee” simply by virtue of getting hired and reporting to a job.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

What the emerging generation has not been told is that there ain’t no free lunch, and that includes free coffee.

Whether producing a sale, a product, a service, or some other kind of tangible result that has a measurable impact on bottom line profits, all workers are ultimately judged and compensated based on their production.  Sooner or later, if the value of the results they produce do not far exceed the amount printed on their paychecks, they will be replaced.

You Don’t Have to Be an A-Hole to Get the Message Through

If you have people on your payroll who exasperate you by acting entitled to free coffee from your operation, you don’t have to go Alec Baldwin on them to alert them to the CIFC principle.  There’s a better way.

1. Teach them your business. You know what it takes to make a profit and keep the lights on. But chances are most of your people don’t. They may understand how to make a widget, but that doesn’t mean they understand the complexities of a widget-making operation and what it takes from each person on the team to keep the business growing and the paychecks flowing. Educate them.  Make certain that everyone in your operation understands the CIFC principle (whatever you choose to label it) and why it is in effect in your business.

2. Provide clear, measurable expectations. What exactly is ‘the standard’ for each job? How do people in each position exceed those expectations? How/when will they know if they fall short? Is there a daily, weekly, monthly measurement of each individual’s progress toward their stated objectives to enable them to self-evaluate?  Metrics matter. Let them see how they are doing compared to what they are expected to be doing.

3. Make sure the coffee in the cups of your producers runneth over. Reserve the sweetest rewards for those who consistently produce above and beyond results. The quickest way to demotivate top producers is to give them the same rewards as those who produce less. Everyone should be treated fairly, but not everyone should be treated the same.

With massive changes in healthcare and labor policies, the workplace will continue to undergo an extreme makeover in the coming year. To survive, sustain, and to succeed in the midst of this turbulence, it’s imperative that you inform your emerging workforce (and remind those who may have forgotten) that throughout every phase of your organization — regardless of how harsh it may sound — one core principle remains intact: coffee is for closers.

Eric Chester is an award winning keynote speaker and the author of Reviving Work Ethic. He is also the Founder of The Center for Work Ethic Development. He can be contacted through www.RevivingWorkEthic.com or by calling 303-239-9999.

maltatoday reports:

President George Abela has called on political parties to behave with courtesy and respect towards one another in the coming general election, urging them to base their debate on rational arguments and to avoid personal attacks.

During his customary Christmas address, Abela noted that that the coming year will bring with it a general election, remarking that this will intensify the political debate that has already been ongoing for some time.

“A healthy democracy requires open and free debate, accessible to everyone, informed and civil. Everyone has the right to his or her own opinion, as well as the right to disseminate and broadcast this opinion so as to convince others through modern channels of communication,” Able said.

The President said that he “remains hopeful that this will be done in the best way, in an atmosphere of mutual courtesy and respect between the parties involved and based on rational arguments regarding the issues that the people are concerned with, without personal attacks that do no honour to those who resort to them.”

He also argued that the coming government will be guided “by the common good and will work towards greater social justice.”

In his message, the President also praised the manner in which the Maltese people values the principle of the family, noting that while 2011 was characterised by the divorce debate, 2012 saw the discussion of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and the law dealing with “the protection of the foetus.”

“One can note with pleasure that this debate unfolded with maturity and openness, even if, as happens in a democracy country, there were different opinions. I think that this debate showed above all that, as a nation, we have at heart not only ethical values in general, but especially, the protection and dignity of the human life from conception to a natural death,” Abela said.

Abela noted that “a healthy society needs to founded upon the respect for values” adding that while a society may change politically, socially, and culturally, “certain fundamental values to do not change” such as loyalty, honest, respect, and integrity.

The President said that every citizen must respect these values that regulate his or her behaviour both privately and professionally, adding also that “society expects a special respect of these values from certain public officials.”

Abela noted that among these officials is the judiciary, and noted how events in the recent weeks affected the judiciary negatively.

“I say without hesitation that I was shocked and displeased with the allegations we heard, but I certain did not lose trust in the judiciary, the majority of which exercises its function with exemplar honesty and integrity.”

At the same time, Abela said that he feels “comforted” by the fact that the country enjoys “an effective system to assure that nobody is above the law.”

He also noted that “no reform can guarantee the integrity of public officials,” insisting that “this guarantee can only come from the individual in question, that he or she comports him or herself in a manner that respects the highest moral and ethical values that the position entails.”

Abela also noted that 2012 was busy with significant events, both local and international, among them being the European and global economic downturn.

He said that Malta cannot help but feel the effects of the economic instability that has been ongoing for some time now, and said that “our families had to face the consequences of rising prices which could cause difficulties to those families with low income.”

He said that despite this, “our economy remained relatively strong and employment, compared to a number of European countries, is relatively contained.” He added that certain sectors of the economy, such as tourism and financial services, also remained strong, and expressed the hope that they “keep strengthening.”

Able urged the country “to remain prepared for economic developments which can emerge in European and global markets” during the coming year.

He said that he is confident that “if there is national unity and solidarity keeps growing towards all members of society, we will be able to meet what emerges head on, with the best tools at our disposal.”

He said that in the current economic climate, “we need to give more importance to the notion of social justice” and emphasised that “those who are most in need should be helped the most” pointing to families at risk of poverty, people with special needs, and those seeking adequate employment.

“I believe that it is the level of social justice that distinguishes one country from another in practice,” adding that “social justice cannot happen without an equal distribution of the national wealth, and if there is an exaggerated disparity between those who have a very high income and those who have an income that does not permit a decent living according to today’s expectations.”

Abela also noted that 2012 was the European Year for Active Aging and Solidarity Between Generations, adding that this does not mean that further activities in this regard should not be held. He said that society should further recognise the contribution that older people can give by remaining active and involved in their community.

“If youth have energy and enthusiasm in the voluntary work sector, the elderly have the wisdom and experience to contribute,” Abele said, urging young and old to strengthen their links and retain contact “in the spirit of solidarity between the generations” and “cooperate through voluntary work for the common good.”

Abela also noted that solidarity is a very important characteristic, adding that “I see it every day in my charity work.” He added that the success of the L-Istrina, as well as the wealth of voluntary charity organisations active in Malta are a testament to this.

Abele said that this year too, the Malta Community Chest Fund was able to get together a large sum of donations, and took the occasion to thank those involved or who contributed “The good that will be done thanks to the funds gathered is to the satisfaction of the entire Maltese population.”

The President also noted that during the festive season, perhaps more than the rest of the year, our thoughts should turn to those who find themselves alone, those who are incarcerated in Cordin, those who are ill or have special needs (as well as their families), and those who find themselves without work or have family problems.

“I urge those who can to lend courage to those who are in need by means of encouragement, or some other form of solidarity. Every act of support, sympathy, or solidarity towards our neighbour has large value and can fill the gulf that is left by solitude or hopelessness,” Abela said.

http://www.andrewazzopardi.org

Related articles

• Independence, Republic should be only two national days in Malta – President Gorg Abela | ToM (andrewazzopardi.org)
• President appeals to public officials to show moral and ethical values (timesofmalta.com)

“Freedom and Liberty are God-Given Rights! One must take a position, popular or not! I take the Right position! Values, Morality and Ethics!”

-Edward P. Steele

A relatively small investment in a rental home can control a good home that will easily rent, generate positive cash flows and pay for itself. The borrowed funds create leverage that earn a return on the total value of the home and not just the amount of cash you have invested.

The strategy is simple. Find a slightly below average priced home that will rent well. It will appeal to a larger group of people while it’s rented and when it’s ready to be sold.

Rent the home and maintain its condition over the years. As the loan amortizes and the value increases, the equity will grow. When your student is ready to start college, you’ll actually have several options.

You can sell the property; pay the tax on the gain at the reduced capital gains rate and fund the education. Another option would be to refinance and take the proceeds to pay for the tuition. This would allow you to continue to own the asset but would free your equity and under current tax laws is a non-taxable event.

Regardless of whether you’re trying to plan for your children’s education or your own retirement, rental property offers many solid investment opportunities. Contact me if you want more information.

Image via Wikipedia

When is insurance a waste of time? We insure many things in life, vehicles, possessions, loss of limbs, loss of earnings, fire damage, flooding and leaks, family, pets and almost anything that you can think of. Insurance companies must be one of the most successful and lucrative businesses to be involved in. It’s as though they have a licence to print money. Not many of us would say that insurance is value for money when we come to pay for the service. The thing is many of our insurance policies can be a nightmare to understand and we might find that the cover we think we have is not quite what we think it is. When we come to make a claim we can find that what is written in the small print excludes us from being successful. Some minor clause or infringement will deny us the restitution we think we are entitled to. In many cases the insurance policy is not worth the paper it is written on and if we analyse things we might conclude that we are wasting money having a policy in the first place. Take household contents insurance for instance, unless we itemise all of our possessions when we come to make any claim against loss or damage of an item we might discover that our premiums only provided cover to a certain level and that by having possessions that increase the total value of all of what we own, even by a small amount, will make any payment void. This means that we should provide cover above the total value of our possessions. If the value comes to £40,000 we should take out insurance for £45,000 or more. If we had insurance cover for the lower amount and then bought goods which raised the total value above that amount we wouldn’t be covered for any loss. Sometimes it just isn’t worth having the insurance in the first place. Sometimes the premiums we pay would be sufficient to replace any losses that might be incurred. Certain types of insurance are necessary of course, vehicles and bricks and mortar for instance. Liability insurance is probably one of the most important and essential insurances we can take out. I have home insurance (the building itself against fire and other damage), contents insurance, public liability insurance, life insurance, vehicle insurance but I do not bother with individual items such as mobile phones and other minor possessions. Another kind of insurance is the one that is disguised as an extended guarantee for new electrical goods. If the goods become faulty within the guarantee period there is no need to take out insurance against it being faulty during that period and with most electronic goods if they are going to fail it will be inside of the first twelve months else they won’t become faulty for years. Any insurance payments would cover the cost of replacing most things by the time they need replacing. So insurance is a good thing but it can be a waste of money if it is not essential or if it is the wrong type of policy. Before forking out the cash it is wise to assess the real need for cover and only pay for it if it is absolutely necessary.

Shirley Anne

I was listening to Caroline Myss‘ “Essential Guide for Healers” today and she said something that stopped me in my tracks. She said “I’ll tell you why nations don’t heal, and probably why it will be a mighty long time until they do, and that is because there is no money in peace.” Meaning that the profits of peace, the benefit of it, the economic benefit, is hidden. But the total value of peace is not something that most people need explained. The ability to be safe, to work, to raise babies, to have love and friendship, it is something that we have in common with everyone on the planet. It is priceless.

The price of war is quantifiable, it is easy to demonstrate the economic benefits of war. It creates jobs in a down economy. If you were a business person and only looked at the balance sheets you might be inclined to think that war was a good company to invest in, even better if it paid dividends. Peace is nebulous, it is spread out over millions of people, hundreds of thousands of local businesses. It is hard to invest in peace or think about profit margins. Peace’s true value is only felt when it is lost. It is felt when we come to understand that the only thing standing in the way of starving babies and food is bullets in a gun and a propped up ideology.

How many other things in our world do we only truly value when they are lost? Peace is one. But also, health, clean water, clean air, forests, relationships, people we care about. These are things that have quantifiable, monetary value only when they are gone. We intuitively know that these things are precious. That the true worth is not something that can be expressed by money alone. But the interesting thing is, that until we start making choices based on the foundation of love, we easily slide into making the choice that costs the least money, or rather what makes us the most money.

I think the most dangerous force in our economy right now, is love. If people truly cared for their neighbours, their global neighbours, they would stop making most of the foolish decisions they do. Love would crumble the system. If you loved others and loved yourself, then no need to buy the latest keeping up with the Jones’ item. It would be easy to spend more to get less if it meant you were buying local, sustainable and responsible. For a long time we have kept the true cost of our little daily decisions at arms length. It is uncomfortable to acknowledge that our decisions might have hurt the things we hold dear.

But there is power in acknowledging this pain, because it is like the cancer patient that finally stops smoking, through the realization we are given the gift, the push to change. To choose better, to choose wiser, to choose love.

For example, the global technology giant 3M is well-known for its company values. Why? Because the entire team – from top executives all the way down to the mailroom – live and breathe the principles of honesty and integrity every day. 3M communicates clearly that it wants its staff to keep promises, have personal accountability, and respect others in the workforce. Every leader in the company knows this, so they work by these rules. Hopefully, your company has clear rules about how it wants team members to act. As a leader, it’s up to you to know these rules and codes of conduct – and to make sure you live them.

Your personal values are also important. Good leaders follow their personal values as well as organizational values.

Ask yourself these questions:

• What standards of behavior are really important to me, to my company?
• What specific values do I admire in certain leaders? Do I identify with those values?
• Would I still live by those values, even if they put me at a competitive disadvantage?

At times, you’ll make a decision but still wonder if you did the right thing. You may be uncomfortable, but these situations can teach you to trust yourself and your instincts. If you calm your anxiety and look logically at the situation, your instincts will often guide you in the right direction.

Ethical living – and leading – takes courage and conviction. It means doing the right thing, even when the right thing isn’t popular or easy. But when you make decisions based on your core values, then you tell the world that you can’t be bought – and you lead your team by example.

Once you identify your company’s core values as well as your own, you can start to set the tone with your team and your organization. Actions always speak louder than words, so make sure you do as you would wish others to do.

Until next time, Examine the values and do the right thing,

Rod

Richard the Lion Heart

I often hear people say things like “you shouldn’t be judgmental” or “why are you hating on…” or “I hate judgmental people” or “I don’t want to be judgmental” or things of that nature, both in the media and in real time. I wanted to take a moment and just clarify what we are all meaning by “judgmental” – because I think that makes a big difference in our viewpoints.

“Judgment” should not be mistaken for “looking down upon” or “feeling superior to”. Having judgment is an essential quality in human society. The basic meaning of the term “judgmental” is being discerning, distinguishing between, differentiating between, and determining one over the other, in a given situation. This is also called making choices based on our values, morals, ethics, tastes, and world view, and we are required to do this, daily.

To say “I hate all forms of judgment” is to imply that one is an utterly opinionless creature (and willfully so), unwilling to make any decisions or choices or to claim a moral, ethical, or world view. This, in my opinion, is a big mistake that modern people make regularly, because in our (western) society we have come to misuse the term so profoundly. Today, being “judgmental” has been equated with “being prejudiced”. That is, of course, true. I am judgmental, for example, when it comes to my choice of berries (in order of preference, I will always choose raspberries over blueberries, blackberries over raspberries, and so on); when it comes to my choice of orange juice. I do not LIKE Sunny Delight. I have found it to be too sweet, too chemically orange, and too unfulfilling to drink of it. Therefore, I choose Tropicana. I have judged that for me, Sunny Delight is an inappropriate choice. I have a deep-seated prejudice against the stuff.

That seems like a trivial example, but that is intentional, because I feel the only way to show what I mean is through an innocuous response that cannot upset anyone else (save the poor Sunny Delight drinkers, of whom I humbly beg forgiveness for bad-mouthing your drink of choice so publicly). We do, of course, apply the same principles in our dealings with other human beings, which is where it can get dicey, if our meanings and intentions (to be as comfortable as we can and get along as well as we can, by being around what we like and avoiding what we do not like) are misinterpreted.

In a personal example, I live in a quite-mixed racially neighborhood. I chose to live here, and I love it here. I do NOT love extremely loud music, bass lines, or revving motorcycles. In my neighborhood, we alas occasionally have all three. I am deeply and profoundly prejudiced against these things, especially at 10:00 p.m. One of my neighbors is an African-American fellow who does not share my prejudice against loud noises. He determined that when I went out at 10: 30 at night to tell him to PLEASE turn all that noise off, I was being a prejudiced racist (this is his learned experience) and proceeded to let me know in NO uncertain terms what he thought of me as such. Anyone not familiar with this degree of projection might have called it a day and decided that reinforced any possible prejudices s/he might have harbored. Fortunately, I enjoy human beings and find them endlessly fascinating, and was able to talk him down and explain to him that I have a 6 year old and a 3 year old whose windows directly face his revving motorcycle and roaring baseline, and also that I am prone to headaches. That I was willing to disclose this to him after the things he had said to me opened lines of communication and he apologized for keeping my kids up; he, too, has young children, and as a matter of fact, his wife had also been rather unhappy with his loud choices. We have determined that the revving motorcycle and roaring baseline might best be saved for earlier than 9:00 p.m. ventures, and weekends and holidays. I think my neighbors are fine people; I do not object to them in the least. I merely object to behavior that infringes on my (and my childrens’) right to a good night’s sleep.

In other words, as human individuals, by the very dint of being alive and of having choices presented to us, we must, if we are to be able to function with any degree of normalcy, be judgmental and have our prejudices. We cannot (or, should not) wear every style of shirt all at once to avoid judging the many different styles of shirt available to us. We cannot (or should not) buy a car we dislike intensely to show that we have no ill feelings towards that particular make and model. We cannot (or should not), when sitting on a jury, find one who has actually committed a crime “not guilty” by reason of not wanting to seem judgmental.

And, therefore, we cannot (or should not) say that to feel that the behavior of another individual or individual(s), or their words, or any other thing about them is not in line with the world view, morals or ethics of another is inherently wrong behavior and that we should seek to eradicate such feelings within us. We cannot say, “no human being should ever discriminate, judge, or harbor prejudice”. For one thing, this is illogical, because human beings are hard-wired, like any other living thing, to make choices based on the immediately available data. For another, such discernment is an important aspect of growing up. If we were all to have the same ideas about things as full adults as we did as college students just out of our parents’ homes, then the world truly would be a mess.

What we can and ought to do, is firstly to attempt not to discriminate against, judge, or harbor prejudice against someone for things beyond his or her control – such as the race, religion, or culture s/he was born into – and secondly, to understand and accept that our judgment will not necessarily be the same as that of others, and to find ways to communicate when this is so. If no agreement can be reached, then we must agree to disagree, and tolerate that the differences will remain – but this does not mean we have to continue to maintain such relationship, to force ourselves to be around the persons or behaviors we don’t like. It simply means we accept things as they are and move on. This behavior, charity towards our neighbors, friends, and so forth (charity in the sense of tolerance and willingness to accept them as they are or to let them be in peace), together with judgment, are what permit us to live together as communities at all.

We learn from our experiences, and our experiences are fraught with making choices and learning what we do and do not like, what we can and cannot tolerate – in short, learning to exercise good judgment, to be discerning.

I don’t find this to be a bad thing; I find it to be a necessary thing. Philosophers throughout time has explored how human beings do this, with an eye to trying to streamline the process, and it is a question that has occupied many pages and much ink in world literatures. It is only in the modern society, with the major issues of race and ethnicity and the cultural issues of individual and collective rights that have sprung up, that the term “being judgmental” is such a negative one. The terms “judgmental” and “prejudice” are not, in themselves, negative – it is the fashion in which they are used, usually a political and social attack, that renders them so.

I, however, prefer people who are discerning over other sorts; when I ask you what kind of wine you would like to drink when we have dinner together, I do not have the budget nor the inclination to have “one of each” so as to avoid judging them by quality and personal preference…!

In other news, today’s random medieval fact: continuing in our Richard the Lionheart kick(hence the photo choice for today’s post), the fellow was crowned King on the 3rd of September, 1189, at Westminster. He then proceeded to spend 11 months total in England, with the rest of his time spent off on Crusade, giving him the dubious honor of being the monarch with the least face time of any other in his own country. Which was probably for the best, since he spoke no English…!

Prelude | Essence and Potentiality | Definitions | What is human? | Intrinsic Value of humanity | Of fetuses, infants, disabled, and others (Part a) |  Of fetuses, infants, disabled, and others (Part b) | Functionalism and Utilitarian ethics revisited | Conclusion

___________________________________________________

We now know that to be human is to be a rational animal (thus defined as a human animal). To be a human animal is to have a soul. Is the idea that we have intrinsic value based upon having a soul? I do not believe so. I believe that ensoulment can provide one of the better arguments for intrinsic human value, especially under the Christian worldview. After all, under the Christian worldview, a human being is made in the image of God, thus by the very nature of being human, a person has value because that person is made in God’s image. This is the strongest case so long as a person believes in the Christian God and that He created humans in His image. If one has those two beliefs as a premise, then it logically follows that humans – no matter their stage of development or ability to actualize all capacities – have intrinsic value.

Unfortunately, not everyone accepts such premises and it is doubtful that most people will change their mind on such premises. We are then left to ask ourselves if there is any natural reason for believing in intrinsic human value. Do we have a reason to believe in it by appealing to reason alone? I would advocate that there is certainly a non-spiritual, non-religious, purely natural way of determining that humans have intrinsic value.

Intrinsic Value

What does it mean for a thing to have “intrinsic value”? As the name indicates, to have intrinsic value means that a thing has value by the mere act of existing. One cannot add to one’s value or take away from one’s value; all things that of a group that are intrinsically valuable are all equally valuable. If we could add to intrinsic value, then the value is ultimately extrinsic. It is the same if we could take the value away. Thus, if value is intrinsic, it is the same for everyone.

This stands in stark opposition to the view of extrinsic value. A car is extrinsically valuable. Its value goes only so far as people will let it go. If no value is placed upon the car, then so be it. The American dollar is extrinsically valuable; it only has the power it does because people have decided to put an emphasis on it as a way for paying for services rendered and goods. If we did not value the dollar, then it would be of no value.

So if humans are extrinsically valuable, then there are no human rights; humans would have to earn their value (if there is, in fact, any value to be earned at all). Humans, as a whole or as individuals, would only be as valuable as we make them to be. If we decide that certain humans aren’t valuable, then those humans simply have no value.

This is why the debate over extrinsic and intrinsic value is so important. It lays at the basis over deciding human rights. Those who accept intrinsic value (such as myself) would argue that all humans, regardless of physical or mental condition or stage of development are valuable human beings, deserving of basic human goods (human rights). That is the position that I am going to defend on this post. Though I have already dealt somewhat with utilitarianism and the idea of extrinsic value in the second post of this series, I will deal with it more later in a following post. For now, however, I wish to defend the natural law view of intrinsic human value.

The Deontological Defense

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant laid some good groundwork for a belief in intrinsic value. Though his deontological view of ethics provides adequate groundwork, it is ultimately insufficient for completely defending a belief in intrinsic value. However, before dealing with its inadequacies, it is good to look at how his deontological view helps provide a basis for intrinsic value.

Kant taught that there were two axiomatic beliefs concerning the natural view of ethics. He believed that we should act in a way that we would wish to see our ethics made universal and that we should act in a way toward humans so that we treated them as ends and not means to an end. These two axioms provide a good support for intrinsic value.

Axiom 1 – Act in a way that we would wish to see our ethics made universal.

Too often people take this as Kant laying the foundations for subjectivity. Though such an argument can certainly be made (one of the short comings of deontology), Kant is assuming that those following the axiom are concerned with goodness. Thus, Kant argues that if we would not want people to steal from us and we don’t want people to steal from others, then we should never steal in any way.

Kant’s argument is actually an ethical view that is in desperate need in the world today, specifically in business ethics and politics. He simply states that if you want others to act in a certain way, then you too must act in that way so as to make the law universal. If you refuse to act in that way, then you do not truly view the ethic as universal and thus negate your own ethical standards. I cannot lie to you, but then want everyone to not lie.

Axiom 2 – Always act so that you are using humans as an end and not merely as a means.

To use a human as an end simply means that we value the person as an individual. We do not harm the person, manipulate the person, or treat the person as a commodity; we value the person as an individual human being. As Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen explain in their book Embryo:

Certainly, if I believe that your death will be instrumental to my getting the inheritance, to kill you is to treat you as a mere meant to my end of getting the money. By contrast, if I ask you for money, and you agree to lend or give it to me, then I have treated you as an end in yourself by letting the decision remain yours – you are the one who determines whether to give or lend the money. I have thus not treated you as merely subordinate to my wishes, like an instrument for obtaining my ends. (pg. 96).

All humans want to be treated in such a way. No one likes being treated as a means to an end. This is why there is so much discontent in many factories or in many corporations, because humans are treated as ways to make money, not as individual human beings.

Kant does, unfortunately, have downfalls. For instance, his first axiom wouldn’t work for people who give no regard for their own lives or other human lives. Under such a framework (though rare), a person wouldn’t even care about the second axiom. So there is an assumption in Kant’s deontology that must be explored more fully, namely that humans are intrinsically valuable.

Why Humans and Not Animals?

One objection that could be raised immediately, especially with the deontological view, is that only humans are targeted as intrinsically valuable and not animals. The philosopher Peter Singer, for example, argues that if animals can feel pain then they are just as valuable as other human beings who can feel pain. So what is the differentiation between humans and animals?

Pain does not work as a measuring mark because pain, to a certain degree, is quite subjective. What might be painful for one person may only be a nuisance for another. Does this mean a person who feels more pain has more value than the one who feels less pain? Or what if we argue that species who have the capacity to feel pain are valuable? If we do this, though, then by arguing for the capacity to feel pain, we render the destruction of human life – from the embryo to the natural end of life – as immoral and evil. If one is willing to grant such a conclusion, then so be it.

Regardless, since “pain” is subjective and some people, such as sadomasochists, enjoy pain, it doesn’t work as a proper standard. What is it then that separates humans from animals?

First, as mentioned in the previous post, humans are rational beings. Humans hold in their very nature the capacity for thought. What is the proof that we are rational?

Humans have the capacity to choose. If one wanted to hold to a deterministic stance, specifically of biological determinism, then one would need to explain how humans can be irrational. Nature is, for the most part, rational. Rationality is the norm in nature. All animals operate like well oiled machines, doing what is rational according to their nature. Humans, however, are prone to acting irrationally. If biology determines our choice, then why are humans the lone anomaly in acting irrationally? The human capacity to be irrational indicates that we have the ability to freely choose certain actions; that is, we hold the capacity of choice.

A second proof is that we can appreciate aesthetics and art. An animal can look at a painting and think nothing of it. A human, however, can look at a painting and find the beauty in it, the creative ability of the artist, and even interpret a message. It is within a human’s natural capacity to do so. What I mean by that is we have the ability to actualize our appreciation for aesthetics. I am currently staring at a computer screen and a while ago I was asleep. So for some time I have not been in a situation where I could appreciate aesthetics. This does not mean I have lost my ability, merely that I am currently in a location that does not allow for me to act on my capacity for appreciation of aesthetics.

A third proof is that humans can act without being instinctual. In fact, this used to be a virtue; to evaluate any given situation and rationally think through it, going against our instinct to act and instead act in a rational manner. If someone calls us stupid or insults who we are, our instinct is to fight back. However, we hold the capacity – even if we do not act on that capacity – to respond in a rational manner or ignore our instincts completely and subsequently ignore the person.

All three of these are things animals cannot do. We may develop technology that might allow animals to act rationally (hypothetically speaking), but this would be an extrinsic act. Animals, when left on their own, lack the ability to think rationally. It is not within their nature to be rational, thus they do not have the capacity for rationality. Humans, however, do hold the capacity to be rational beings; it is within a human’s nature, even if not currently actualized, to be a rational being.

The second thing that differentiates us from animals is that we have a desire for freedom. Now, in some sense, many other animals desire “freedom” in the sense that they do not enjoy being barricaded. But the human sense of freedom goes much deeper. We want the freedom to make certain choices. We want the freedom to certain rights. Our freedom is beyond that of any other animal; we want freedom that extends beyond location without barriers.

Humans want to act upon their rationality, to be creative, to make choices, to seek after knowledge, etc. When such actions are removed, people will fight for their freedom. Animals, however, aren’t creative and have no rationality to begin with, so they could care less about the right to choose or the right to be creative.

In fact, totalitarian societies have one of two options when they remove freedom from individuals; convince individuals through pleasure that freedom is overrated and that the pleasures given to them by the government outweigh freedom, or brutalize and scare the people into giving up their freedoms, that is, brainwash them. Both of these actions, however, must be external actions as it is within the human capacity to desire freedom; it is part of our nature to want freedom and to be free.

Intrinsic Value for Humans

The above not only separates us from animals, it is the explanation for why we are intrinsically valuable. For if humans have within their nature to both be rational and desire freedom, then to violate either the rationality or freedom of an innocent human being would be abhorrent.

Some might want a justification for the above, but I would argue that such a sentiment is simply a priori in all human persons. Both liberals and conservatives can sympathize with Martin Niemöller’s poem, which states:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

All humans have a sense that, “If it could happen to me, then I don’t want it to happen at all.” Of all of Christ’s teachings, the second greatest commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” is the least controversial of all of Christ’s teachings, because whether one is a Buddhist, a Baptist, a Jew, an agnostic, a Muslim, or an atheist, one can accept the premise. I believe this is because such a sentiment is a priori within human nature; we don’t want our rationality and freedom interfered with, thus we conclude it would be wrong to do so with others without proper and justifiable warrant.

This would mean that we have basic human goods, things that fulfill us as humans. These goods are intangible, that is, they are not the same as material goods. Having a nice car, the best television, the biggest house, and the like might make us temporarily happy, but material goods always leave us wanting more. The basic human goods, therefore, are goods that can be pursued for a lifetime that will also fulfill us. Likewise, they fulfill us because they are good in and of themselves – though we can pursue such goods because of the effects they will bring, we do not necessarily have to do so as the goods are good in and of themselves.

Such goods would be the right to pursue knowledge, the right to privacy, the right to pursue God (or religion or no religion at all) in your own way, and others. Such goods might be open to debate, but one good that is not open to debate (if we are truly intrinsically valuable human beings) is that of life; life is the most basic good. If we do not have a right to life, then we do not have a right to anything else. All other goods, whatever they might be, hinge upon the belief that we are (1) currently living and (2) hold the right to live.

A Right Interrupted

If the right to life is our most basic and fundamental right, then the violation of that right would be evil in cases where a person is innocent. Certainly there are instances where the taking of a human life is necessary, but this is generally when the life being taken is purposefully threatening the life of an innocent human being. Regardless, if humans have intrinsic value, then to harm or kill an innocent human being is to violate a person’s most basic right.

In a pragmatic view, this would mean that if are willfully able to harm innocent humans for arbitrary reasons (e.g. a person has a different skin color, a person talks funny, etc) then we must accept that such harm can also be done to us. It leads to an ethic where only the strongest survive. Such an ethic is not tenable and does not aid in human survival, hence why few societies have followed such an ethic.

Rather, because we enjoy not being harmed for being different or weaker than other humans, we too choose not to harm or kill humans who might be different from us or weaker than us. We do this because we know a priori that we have value and that other humans have value.

So humans do have intrinsic value. This means that whether I am asleep and thus incapable actualizing my rationality or my desire for freedom or awake and actualizing my desires, I have value. Since we learned that nature cannot change (see Part 3) and that rationality and a desire for freedom are a part of our nature, and these are what give us intrinsic value, no matter my condition, unless I am dead, I am intrinsically valuable.

This, however, is one aspect that we will cover in Part 6 of the series (soon to be posted). Part 6 will deal with embryos, fetuses, infants, the elderly, the mentally retarded, the severely disabled, and others humans who are different either through disability or stage of development. It will explore two parts; (1) do we have value when we are in these states and (2) are we still human in these states? I will contend that even in such states, we are still human persons and thus worthy of respect because we still have intrinsic value.