MSI Press Blog

Cultural relativism reminds us of something quietly radical: calling something a “value” is never neutral. It is an act of power. It is a decision about what counts as moral, civilized, respectable, or progressive — and who gets to decide. Every society has behaviors it elevates and behaviors it discourages. But the moment a group declares, “This is a value,” it is also declaring, “This is the standard by which others will be judged.” That act of naming is political. Who Decides What Counts as a Value? Behind every moral label lies a set of questions we rarely ask: Who decides which behaviors count as moral progress and which count as decline? Who defines what “respect,” “family,” or “success” mean? Who has the authority to declare a cultural practice admirable, outdated, or dangerous? These questions matter because values do not float above society like universal truths. They are shaped by institutions, reinforced by norms, and policed through language. When a dominant group define...

  Modern societies often speak as if values travel easily across borders — justice, freedom, equality, respect. We treat these words as if they were neutral containers, ready to be carried from one culture to another without changing shape. But values are not luggage. They are rooted in histories, metaphors, social structures, and emotional expectations. When they cross borders, they do not remain intact. Every value carries cultural inflections that quietly alter its meaning. Freedom Isn’t Universal — It’s Interpreted In a collectivist society, freedom often means freedom within responsibility — the ability to act, but always with an awareness of how one’s choices affect the group. Freedom is relational. It assumes interdependence. In an individualist society, freedom often means freedom from constraint — the ability to act without interference. Freedom is protective. It assumes autonomy. Both societies use the same word, but they are not talking about the same experience. Ju...

  Today's meditation from  Weekly Soul: Fifty-two Meditations on Meaningful, Joyful, and Peaceful Living   by Dr. Frederic Craigie. -17-   I don't want to get to the end of my life and find that I lived just the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as well.   Diane Ackerman   Psychologists love to talk about depth. Depth psychology. Deeply-hidden instincts and motivations. Deeply-held values. Fine, but in a world with three (or more) dimensions, there is also length and width. Between the two, I find that width is the far more intriguing. A widely-lived life invites and embraces passion. Enthusiasm. Sometimes, exuberance. You can be faithful to those deeply-held values, but you are also entitled to be passionate and to experience the thrill of being alive. The 2007 film, The Bucket List , popularized the title phrase and made it part of everyday common language. Lead characters played by Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman, both terminally ill w...

    Excerpt from  How to Argue with an Atheist , by Professor TL Brink              STEP #4: Develop a Priority of Your Values     STUDENT: Dr. Brink?  I have been thinking about what you said about the limits of science, that science cannot prove which values that we should commit ourselves to.   BRINK: Would you wish to dispute that point?   STUDENT: Not directly. I agree that values are one thing and facts another, and that facts cannot be used to prove values, but I still like science.   BRINK: So do I.   STUDENT: I mean I still choose science and choose its values.   BRINK: How so? If science does not prove which values we should choose, what does it mean to choose the values of science?   STUDENT: What I mean is that science is valuable because it achieves certain values. If gives us technology that helps us attain important values, such as health and comfort.   BRINK: Correct you a...