I don't know if it "makes much more sense" - you certainly end up with more questions. Some potentially decent ones, some that don't make much sense at all ("Are identifying values identifying identities" ... "Are universal values tribal identities" ). Questions are awesome generally ... but most awesome are the right questions .. and least awesome are random questions that aren't really questions

@fpinto Your question sounded to me as like this "do electritians unions believe that all men are created equal?"

@fpinto or "do the presidents supporters believe in the seperation of powers?"

@CuriousFury it's more like "are electricians humans too", or "are the president's supporters subject to the separation of powers regardless of what they think on the matter"

@fpinto you are modifying your initial question. Let me start over with my thought opinion on the original questions- tribal identity is an oxymoron and universal value is infinity to the value of infinity. What a silly question.... i am trying to be nice

@CuriousFury disagreed, you are confused on the meaning of basic terms. Probably you assign them your own definition. I'm also trying to be nice here ... it's not easy conversing with you on this topic if you don't know what "tribal identity" (a set of practices and behaviors broadly adopted by members of an in-group) or "universal value" (an ideal that appears to be broadly shared by all of humanity, such as truth, or beauty, or the good) generally mean. It;d be worse if you were pretending not to know and trolling - but I don't know that to be the case, so I won't assume

@fpinto i would love to converse on the subject. Two relations that seem in conflict
Universal truth- all death and decay is un avoidable

Tribal identity- health care- medical professional with an imperitive to save lives

Doesnt this tribe stand in conflict.

How can there be a universal value? All the examples you gave are individual. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may think that the rust pattern on a bolt is gorgeous and you may come by pick it up and cuss it for litter while i was hoing to make it into a hook.

It is alright man. I aint mad at ya, got nothing but love for ya. But universal value does not mean anything because it is imaginary. I am an openminded guy, but you are running around in a hamsyer wheel and i am praying that you find a way off.

@CuriousFury don't worry I don't lose sleep on this stuff! It's just a basic "paradox" people discuss in the social sciences, which I don't think is actually a paradox at all, the two concepts operate on different levels. It'll always be hard (if not impossible) to establish that a value is universal, or that a tribe has one fixed identity, but I do think that distinguishing the levels that in-group behavior and general human behavior operate in can be a useful departure point for cultural and philosophical analysis .. .godspeed

@fpinto oh i bery much agree. Watching fandom develop into emotional outburst addictions against the opposite team support in the form of rally cries, blanket attacks, and queen songs is very upsetting to watch, as a whole. Ecpressions of fidelity by acting as the chiefs microphone All of the sudden the universal value goes to the victor, and the tribe hold power by the number of thrownbearers fanning their champions, and adopting power by proximity to that champion. It happens with team sports, car purchases, food ingredients, clothing, credit cards, schooling, proffesion and politics. Join a headless tribe and tell them you are the champion for their beliefs. Get the tribe to believe your beliefs and bath in exhaltatiin at your own glory.

Even the referees have tribes. Has not the supreme cort been tribalized instead of individualized. Has not news been devided by disbelief for the hands if the stadium to boo and cheer.

It exists in that sense. Yes. Tribal infividuality is dependant in the individual at the head of the tribe and the universal truths within."now all join me in the national anthem"

1. Science itself, for instance, is founded on the belief in universal truth. Namely, a truth that is independent of space, time, or opinion. This is just the clearest example of a universal value. Another one could be non-discrimination, as it's embodied in human rights laws. It is not held out as dependent on any other belief, on place, on time - it is conceived as a universal value.

2. A tribe is a factual entity. Tribes can be big or small, but some elements are recurrent. They are usually united by a place, a set of cultural traits, a language, or a set of common values. They overlap and yes are often fuzzy in the modern world. Some tribes are still insular and distinct from all others, but this is becoming less and less the case with time.

3. I agree with you that our definitions of these terms can be different and so throw any discussion in a rapid tailspin. Hence the need for broadly accepted definitions, or for clear explanations on personal definitions before any real discussion can happen.

4. My issue with the golden rule: it assumes others want to be treated in the same way you want to be treated. A better version is the silver rule: do NOT do onto others what you do NOT want them to do to you. Read Taleb's Skin in the Game for a cool explanation of the difference.

5. Questioning whether or not universal values are even possible outside the realm of objective truth is very fair. My feeling (and this would take too long here) is that thee is such a thing as the universal "good", but that it's not hyper-specific and can also exist alongside local customs and practices. For example, you can hold out that honesty is a universal good, but the "acceptable exceptions" to honesty can be manifold in different tribal contexts. Or you can say that "beauty elevates", but exactly "what" is aesthetic can change tremendously. On and on.

6. The concept of God is the most problematic - For the purposes of virtually all discussions, I think it is better left aside. In my opinion, some words are "bankrupt" from a communication standpoint: everyone has their own definitions, and so using them leads to more confusion than communication. Some say God is great. Others say God is dead. I say God is bankrupt.

@fpinto
#1 - You didn’t ask about “Universal Truth” ... Who says that “non-discrimination” qualifies as a “Universal Value”?
You’re kidding ... right? People all over the world, of every shape and color, every culture and background, even those of the SAME “color” discriminate regularly. Let’s not get into non-human entities ... not only do insects discriminate, ants discriminate towards other ants.
#2 - uhhhhh ... still with the “Tribes/Tribal” thing...
#3 - “broadly accepted definitions” ... like “Universal” ... in other words, sort of okay for some stuff but not actually any good at anything in particular.
#4 - Silver Rule? In other words treat everything pretty passively and hope that others will ... what? Recognize the things you’re “not doing”? Again ... are you kidding? PLEASE show me ONE Time in History where that worked out.
#5 - I think you were mumbling or I could make no sense of it. Do you know that there are cultures and religions where theft is an admirable trait? Where lying is totally acceptable in most scenarios?
#6 - I don’t discuss the concept of “God” because, while I believe there is such a thing, it’s complete hubris to try to define it OR what IT might consider “Universal Values”.

@Bay0Wulf ok, one at a time

1. Of course discrimination actually exists and is the norm. I meant that it's part of human rights doctrine and is supposed to apply, in the legal system, as a normative value to all irrespective of differences, not as a descriptive one. It's designed to invalidate any law that goes against it. OF COURSE actual discrimination exists in the world of facts (otherwise the norm would not be necessary) - what kind of tool doesn't know this. What makes it universal in theory is that it's supposed to apply equally to all, irrespective of their tribal differences. But I agree it is not, in fact, a universal value. It's just that many people think it should be.

2. Uuuuh, yes. Tribal reality exists. It's a concept that describes our communal life for the vast majority of human history, recognized in every single social science there is. So it's a pretty significant "thing" you ignore at your own peril. You don't think ethnic groups have an in-group identity? Really? Fuzziness at the edges doesn't mean a concept doesn't exist.

3. No, those "other words" do not translate what I wrote at all. What "broadly accepted definitions" means is that they serve as a common basis for most discussions most of the time. Otherwise they are no longer "broadly accepted". Each one of those discussions is a "particular thing" for which the accepted definition worked. So they will be good for way more particular discussions than weird personal definitions you choose to adopt outside the norm. Those personal definitions are the ones which won't be very good at very much of anything, until you've made them explicit. Then a new conversation can start.

4. Yes, the silver rule. Google it. It's older than the golden rule. Instead of assuming others want to be treated like you do, which is what the golden rule says, you simply avoid doing to others what you don't want them to do to you. It is less interventionist, and way more respectful of their space. And it's the core tenet of libertarianism. The rest of how you should "treat someone" is left to the private, consensual, contractual, relational space.

5. Yes, maybe you couldn't make sense of it. Every single culture has acceptable exceptions to general norms of behavior. You can't kill except for ..., you can't lie except for .... pretty basic concept. So how is my saying "we can all have the same value, but different exceptions to it' "mumbling", in your mind? And where, exactly, did I write that there was a culture where "lying is totally acceptable in most scenarios"? You"re inventing, right? Re-read. - I just gave two general examples of how two cultures can hold the same value, yet apply it differently.

6. Agreed.

@fpinto
#2 - I suppose you’re using “Tribal” in a historical sense and I’m okay with that but it’s become a buzzword lately and is applied in lots of ways that make little sense ... that only some sort of a “Social Science” Type would use it ... and I sometimes get that sense from the way you use it as well. I’m okay with ethnic grouping, political grouping, gender grouping ... all sorts of sets and subsets of “groupings” but to refer to them as “Tribal”?
Of course, there’s also the idea that I scoff at the concept of “Social” Sciences or “Scientists” since every one of them seems to be making crap up as fast as they can and there’s nothing “empirical” about it ... ergo, it’s lots of things perhaps but it ain’t “Science”.
#4 - I don’t “Google” anything ... ever. I might look things up or research things but I personally despise the lazy “Google” mindset.
As to the “Silver Rule” ... I have no problem believing it exists ... in fact, it sounds a lot like Bhuddism ... and that there are adherents ... though somehow I question it being “older” as that doesn’t even make sense ... like someone deliberately chose “silver” knowing someone else was going to come along with a “Golden...”
As far as that (the “Silver Rule” ) goes, and having read your description of it now three times ... have at it ... enjoy ... if someone comes through and steals all your cookies, don’t come crying to me about your adherence to such a cockamamie thought process.
I’m guessing you’ve had a much “nicer” life than I have experienced ... but I can’t say I’d be willing to trade mine for yours especially if I had to accept such a “sappy” outlook.
I’m okay with True Classic Liberalism but I’ve always considered Libertarians to be a sad sack of mixed nuts anyway ...
#5 - you didn’t write that, I did ... there ARE cultures and religions where lying and cheating ARE not only allowed but “honored” ...

@Bay0Wulf Yes it's becoming the largest monopoly ever and you can be steered towards garbage info sometimes, but Google is pretty cool, you should try it. Especially when quickly researching a topic. That doesn't mean you turn a blind eye at sources - Google isn't a "source' of info, it's just the directory. I don't see why you'd take pride in never using it.

Silver Rule: I'm just saying it's a better rule for one to adopt than the golden. So I won't steal your cookies because I wouldn't want you to steal mine, but I won't give you a basketball for your birthday because I like basketball. That said, the rule says exactly nothing about what you "should" do to someone who does something to you you wouldn't do to them. Where I come from "and" in my philosophical tradition, if you steal my cookie, you're getting punched in the face. That said, the thief doesn't get to dictate my ethical system. Only I get to choose that.

5 - I see, I understand now. You might be right, but I haven't seen such cultures, at least as the rules apply "internally" (in other words, many cultures are ok with you cheating and lying to others, but you're still not supposed to do it internally ... even if people actually do). Values can be normative (what people "should" do according to society) or factual (what people actually do). There might be a case that normative values can be universalized easier and more often than factual values. One reason: the factual always includes tons of individual exceptions, whereas a society can have clear values at the social level. Another: humans can easily be hypocritical about what their values actually are. My point about the accepted exceptions still remains though. You can have value X agreed everywhere, but have it apply differently in different places.

Simple, yet elegantly true. Thanks!

I think incompatibility emerges when you confuse your specific tribe's values with that of the general value it is merely part of. For example: "beauty is being thin and blonde". The universal value would be "beauty is good and elevates us above the mundane", but in restricting beauty to your current tribe's definition of it, you take a short cut and simply think "being thin and blonde elevates". In a sense making the two compatible depends on putting each in its place. Not projecting the particular as "the universal", and not confusing the universal with the many particulars that can each embody it in a slightly different way. It's the same with truth, or with meaning, or with the good. They can all be defined in a universal way, yet leave much room for particular expressions depending on place, time, and the particular path of a particular tribe.

It does yes. But tribal identities can also include adherence to some values, and a rejection of others. For example, you can value freedom, but reject loyalty. My question is can you adhere to a tribal identity and at the same time live in accordance to a universal value, like truth, or beauty. Some would argue that no - anything you define as "universal" is really just your tribal perspective. My hunch is that the answer is a qualified yes - your adherence tot he universal value can be somewhat "colored" by your tribal identity, but you can nonetheless have a deep relationship with it. Of course, sometimes the color overpowers the thing and you're back at the tribal game.

@fpinto I’d agree with your assessment, albeit with one reservation; I don’t know of any cultures that will completely reject any Universal Value. In the example you described, they may put freedom far above loyalty, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone who rejects the virtue of loyalty outright.

@StrykerWolfe I think that's a very astute observation. After all, if it's truly a universal value, it cannot be "completely rejected" by any one culture right? The next question is can an individual completely reject a universal value. I would cautiously venture to say yes. The individual, as a thought unit, is fantastically agile and dynamic, in a way more than an entire culture can ever be (as it only moves and evolves in a sort of social tandem exercise between lots of individuals), but maybe one of the costs of this "agility" is that the individual can have larger blind spots than entire cultures can. Just a hypothesis!

@fpinto I would agree with you, and much less cautiously I might add, that an individual can violate a universal value. This is because values are only ever derived in terms of a group setting, in that they dictate how I am to interact with and treat other human beings. One person in isolation in that sense, wouldn’t have any “values” to speak of at all. The limits of behavior when viewed at the level of the individual resort back to the animal level, which is to say “values” have little impact.