While the concept of protected values as described by Irwin and Baron (2001) was clear to me, values that are protected from trade-offs as well as absolute and inviolable, my protected values were not. I had to stop and think for a while about what things I hold dear and would not consider giving up no matter the circumstances. At first, I was thinking general, such as honesty and integrity, but then I realized that the values they were referring to were more specific. It took me a few days to finally list three values for me that would not be for sale at any price. Two of my protected values are philosophical, vaccinations and animal testing and one is personal, “foreign” vehicles. Though I learned a lot about values this week, I learned more about myself.
The one value that is a personal choice is my commitment to “foreign” car companies, and I say “foreign” as they are all manufactured in the USA but the engineering is from a foreign company. I have owned cars made by the large American companies and have always had multiple issues with reliability and quality, which lead my to me preferring two carmakers, Honda and Toyota. Since making that decision fifteen years ago, I have not had any issues with the quality or reliability of their products, leading me to believe that even though the prices on these cars are higher that the American ones it is worth it. The upfront price is not a trade-off I am willing to give, as in the end the amount saved ends up going to repair costs down the line.
My second protected value is no animal testing; something I feel is cruel, unnecessary and does not eliminate the need for human testing. As an animal person, I cannot accept the abuse that comes with animal testing, even if there is a greater good. Especially when even after the animals are tested the need for human trials still exists, as animals do not respond to things the same way humans do and many trials that pass animal testing fail in the human ones. I will not buy beauty products that are tested on animals, however, I cannot tell you that I do enough research to know what medications we use have been animal tested.
I am a strong proponent of vaccines, especially with children. I have never questioned my doctors when it comes to my kid’s routine vaccinations as I feel the benefits outweigh the risks. That being said there are some medical decisions I do question and will not participate in, one is the flu vaccine and the other is oral fluoride. The flu vaccine is helpful for those who are elderly or have a compromised immune system and if I had either of those situations in my house I would opt to have the vaccine, but I do not so I decline. As for oral fluoride, many doctors are pushing this lately and it has some major risks including a possible link to cancer, but that it not my only reason for declining. I have had multiple conversations with my children’s dentist and he believes that topical fluoride is a much better option and I agree. Maybe this makes me hypocritical when it comes to vaccines or maybe it means my protected value isn’t so protected as it can be sold when the risks outweigh the benefits.
This assignment was a struggle for me, not in that I did not understand the concepts but that I did not understand myself. It was difficult for me to think of values I stand for and would not change, which made me wonder if I actually stand for anything. I then realized that I do stand for certain values but I don’t necessarily take them at face value or without scrutiny. Making a blanket statement where I can say I am completely for or against one thing is not something I can do, I prefer to research all the aspects of the option and make an informed decision from there. Does that mean that my values are not protected? Maybe, but it is what works for me at this time.
Irwin, J, and Baron, J. (2001). Values and Decisions. In S. J. Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, &
R. E. Gunther (Authors), Wharton on Making Decisions (pp. 201-221). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
No comments:
Post a Comment