"value" is worth assigned to something (as opposed to worth strictly derived from the intrinsic nature of something), so "values" are more likely to be idiosyncratic/subjective/shifting. "Values" are a set of held propositions that may or may not ultimately influence the rubber-meets-the-road behavior of the person who holds them. If the rules are subject to me, when I encounter the inevitable practical situation where a rule rubs me the wrong way, I simply change the rule.
"morals" (by definition) are meant to be derived from an objective system of right and wrong. Vis "values," morals are less arbitrarily assigned and more intrinsically derived. "morals" connotes a "rule" by which one is meant to be perpetually governed. As Rich Mullins says, "I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am. / I did not make it. No, it is making me."
A relativist, subscribing to a system that disallows objective right and wrong, would suspect that everyone's professed morals are merely someone else's imposed values.
The dilema of the three baseball umpires is applicable:
The first umpire says, "There's balls and there's strikes, and I calls 'em like I sees 'em." [believes in the existence of an objective reality, but allows for subjective human error in its interpretation.]
The second umpire says, "There's balls and there's strikes, and I calls 'em like they is." [believes in the existence of an objective reality, and assumes he knows exactly what it is.]
The third umpire says, "There's balls and there's strikes, but they ain't nothing 'till I calls 'em." [believes in the non-existence of an objective reality.]
Why none of these umpires is able to speak proper English is the real mystery that has shaken 20th century philosophy to its core. Unfortunately, even a cursory consideration of that topic is beyond the scope of this post.
world's stickiest bogey,http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/images/400/youngones_2.jpg
Jeremy Zilar wrote:
> what is the difference between "values" and "morals"?