Values and What Matters: Building a Personal View Without Jargon

Why a “values framework” helps when you’re unsure

When people disagree about what matters—or when you feel torn yourself—it’s rarely because someone “has no values.” It’s usually because different values are being emphasized, measured, or protected. A practical framework helps you (a) name what’s pulling you, (b) compare options without pretending everything fits on one scale, and (c) make decisions you can stand behind even when there’s no perfect answer.

(1) Value categories you can use without assuming a single hierarchy

Think of value categories as lenses. None automatically outranks the others; the point is to notice which lenses are active in a situation.

Prudential values (good for me)

These concern your well-being and functioning: health, safety, learning, financial stability, rest, autonomy, competence, and peace of mind. Prudential doesn’t mean selfish; it means “what sustains my life and agency.”

• Example: Turning down extra work to protect sleep and mental health.
• Common confusion: Mistaking short-term comfort for long-term prudential good.

Moral values (good for others)

These concern how your actions affect others: fairness, non-harm, honesty, respect, responsibility, generosity, and justice. Moral values often show up as duties, rights, or “lines you shouldn’t cross.”

• Example: Reporting an error that benefits you financially because keeping it would be dishonest.
• Common confusion: Treating “being nice” as the whole of morality; sometimes moral action is uncomfortable.

Aesthetic values (good as experience, form, or beauty)

These concern quality of experience and expression: beauty, elegance, harmony, craftsmanship, style, play, and creativity. Aesthetic values can matter in art, work, home life, and even how you communicate.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

• Example: Choosing a simpler design because it’s clearer and more elegant, even if flashier options impress more.
• Common confusion: Dismissing aesthetic value as “superficial,” when it can shape attention, care, and meaning.

Relational values (good in connection)

These concern bonds and roles: loyalty, trust, love, belonging, gratitude, mutual support, and shared history. Relational values often conflict with moral values when loyalty pressures you to hide or excuse wrongdoing.

• Example: Prioritizing time with a partner during a hard season, even at a career cost.
• Common confusion: Equating loyalty with unconditional agreement; loyalty can include honest challenge.

Spiritual values (good in depth, orientation, or the sacred)

These concern ultimate orientation and inner life: reverence, humility, compassion, forgiveness, devotion, integrity before a higher standard, or a sense of connection to something larger than the self. This category can be religious or non-religious.

• Example: Declining a lucrative role because it violates a vow, a calling, or a core sense of integrity.
• Common confusion: Treating spiritual values as “irrational”; they can be reasoned about through coherence, lived outcomes, and honesty about commitments.

A quick mapping exercise

When you feel stuck, write the dilemma in one sentence, then list which categories are active. Many conflicts become clearer when you see that you’re not choosing between “good and bad,” but between different kinds of good.

(2) Methods for comparing values: trade-offs, thresholds, and “sacred” values

Comparing values doesn’t mean reducing everything to money or points. It means choosing a decision rule that fits the kind of conflict you’re in.

Method A: Trade-offs (when values are commensurable enough)

Use trade-offs when you can accept “some of X for more of Y.” This is common with prudential and aesthetic values, and sometimes relational ones.

• Tool: “What would I give up, and what do I get?”
• Tool: “If I choose A, what am I implicitly saying matters more right now?”
• Tool: “What is the smallest change that would make the other option acceptable?” (a negotiation mindset)

Example: Taking a job with longer hours (prudential money/security) but negotiating one remote day (relational time, prudential rest).

Method B: Thresholds (when a value must reach a minimum)

Threshold thinking says: “I can trade off, but only after a baseline is met.” This prevents you from sacrificing essentials for marginal gains.

• Common thresholds: minimum sleep, minimum honesty, minimum time with children, minimum financial runway, minimum respect in a relationship.
• How to set one: define a measurable floor (hours, dollars, behaviors) or a clear behavioral boundary (“I won’t lie to cover someone’s harm”).

Example: You can pursue ambition, but only if you keep a threshold of two evenings a week for family dinner.

Method C: “Sacred” values (when a value is non-negotiable)

Some values function as identity anchors: they are not “worth it” to trade away, even for large benefits. People often call these sacred, inviolable, or core. They can be moral (do not betray), relational (do not abandon), or spiritual (do not break a vow).

Two cautions:

• Inflation: If everything is sacred, you become brittle and unable to adapt.
• Blind spots: A sacred value can protect dignity—or protect ego. Test it.

Testing a sacred value (without jargon):

• Identity test: “If I violate this, do I become someone I can’t respect?”
• Publicity test: “Would I defend this boundary calmly to someone I respect?”
• Harm test: “Does treating this as sacred predictably harm others?”

Choosing the right comparison method

• Use trade-offs when you’re optimizing and can accept compromise.
• Use thresholds when you need guardrails against slow drift.
• Use sacred values when a boundary protects identity, dignity, or fundamental trust.

(3) Applying the framework to dilemmas with a step-by-step template

Below is a repeatable template. Use it on paper; the act of writing reduces self-deception and reveals hidden assumptions.

The Values Analysis Template

1. State the decision in one sentence. Include the time frame and what you control.
2. Identify the values in play. List at least one from each category that seems relevant.
3. Rank priorities for this situation (not forever). Choose a top 3 and explain why.
4. Check for contradictions. Ask: “Can I pursue these together? If not, which one is being used as an excuse?”
5. Consider long-term consequences. Look at 1 month, 1 year, 5 years. Include effects on habits, relationships, and character.
6. Regret check. Imagine future-you looking back: what regret is most likely, and which regret would be easier to live with?
7. Choose a method: trade-off, threshold, or sacred. Make the decision rule explicit.
8. Decide and design a safeguard. Add a small practice that prevents backsliding (a conversation, a calendar block, a boundary statement).

Dilemma 1: Loyalty vs. honesty

Scenario: A close friend asks you to lie to cover their mistake at work.

1) Decision statement: “Will I lie to my friend’s manager to protect my friend from consequences?”

2) Values identified:

• Relational: loyalty, protecting trust with friend
• Moral: honesty, fairness to others affected
• Prudential: risk to your reputation/job
• Spiritual (optional): integrity as a core commitment

3) Rank priorities (example): (1) moral honesty, (2) relational loyalty, (3) prudential safety.

4) Contradictions: “Loyalty” that requires deception may undermine the very trust it claims to protect. Also, lying can create a pattern: the next lie becomes easier.

5) Long-term consequences:

• If you lie: short-term relief; long-term anxiety, risk of exposure, weakened self-trust, possible enabling of friend’s irresponsibility.
• If you refuse: short-term conflict; long-term clearer boundaries, potential for healthier friendship.

6) Regret check: Which regret is heavier: “I betrayed my integrity” or “My friend was angry at me for a while”?

7) Method choice: Treat honesty as a threshold or even sacred in professional contexts: “I won’t lie to third parties.”

8) Decision + safeguard: Refuse to lie, but offer loyal support: help your friend craft an honest message, accompany them to talk, or help them fix the mistake.

Boundary script: “I care about you, but I won’t lie for you. I will help you face it and repair it.”

Dilemma 2: Ambition vs. family

Scenario: You’re offered a promotion that requires frequent travel and longer hours.

1) Decision statement: “Will I accept the promotion knowing it reduces my time and presence at home for the next 12 months?”

2) Values identified:

• Prudential: income, career growth, security
• Relational: presence, partnership, parenting, shared responsibilities
• Moral: keeping promises, not overburdening others
• Aesthetic: pride in craft/achievement (sometimes ambition is also about excellence)

3) Rank priorities (example): (1) relational stability, (2) prudential security, (3) excellence/achievement.

4) Contradictions: You may say “family first” while designing a life that makes family absorb the costs. Check whether ambition is being justified as “for them” without their consent.

5) Long-term consequences:

• Accept: more resources; possible erosion of intimacy, increased stress, children/partner feeling secondary; habit of overwork.
• Decline: slower career; more stability; possible resentment if you feel stuck.

6) Regret check: Imagine a future moment: a child’s memory, a partner’s burnout, or your own missed growth. Which regret feels like a betrayal of your chosen life?

7) Method choice: Use thresholds: accept only if certain minimums are protected.

• Threshold examples: no travel more than 2 nights/week; one protected weekend/month; shared calendar; childcare plan that doesn’t overload partner.

8) Decision + safeguard: If you accept, write a 3-month review date and a “stop condition” (e.g., if sleep drops below X or relationship conflict exceeds Y, renegotiate or step back).

Dilemma 3: Comfort vs. integrity

Scenario: You can keep quiet about a minor unethical practice at your workplace and avoid conflict, or speak up and risk being disliked.

1) Decision statement: “Will I raise the issue through proper channels, or stay silent to keep things easy?”

2) Values identified:

• Prudential: job security, stress avoidance
• Moral: fairness, non-harm, honesty
• Relational: team harmony, reputation
• Spiritual: integrity, courage

3) Rank priorities (example): (1) moral non-harm, (2) integrity, (3) prudential security.

4) Contradictions: “I’m just avoiding drama” can mask “I’m avoiding responsibility.” Also check the opposite: “I’m being principled” can mask “I want to feel superior.”

5) Long-term consequences:

• Silence: comfort now; increased complicity, cynicism, and self-distrust; practice spreads.
• Speak up: discomfort now; potential improvement; risk of backlash; stronger self-respect.

6) Regret check: Picture being asked later, “Did you know?” Which answer can you live with?

7) Method choice: Treat integrity as a threshold: you can tolerate discomfort, but not participation in wrongdoing.

8) Decision + safeguard: Choose the least escalatory honest action first: document facts, ask a clarifying question, consult policy, then raise concerns. Protect yourself with a plan.

Integrity ladder (low to high): ask → clarify → document → propose fix → report.

Common failure modes (and quick fixes)

• Failure mode: “I can’t decide because I need certainty.” Fix: Decide using thresholds and a review date.
• Failure mode: “I’m optimizing everything.” Fix: Name one sacred/threshold value to prevent drift.
• Failure mode: “I’m loyal, so I excuse anything.” Fix: Redefine loyalty as helping someone become better, not hiding consequences.
• Failure mode: “I’m honest, so I’m harsh.” Fix: Pair honesty with relational care: timing, tone, and repair.

Assignment: Draft a one-page “Values Charter”

Goal: Create a personal document you can consult when you’re pressured, tired, or tempted to rationalize.

Step 1: Choose 2–3 values in each category

• Prudential: (e.g., health, learning, financial stability)
• Moral: (e.g., honesty, fairness, non-harm)
• Aesthetic: (e.g., simplicity, craftsmanship, beauty)
• Relational: (e.g., loyalty, presence, trust)
• Spiritual: (e.g., integrity, compassion, humility)

Step 2: Write your top 5 “decision rules” in plain language

• Threshold rule example: “I don’t take on commitments that reduce my sleep below 7 hours for more than two nights a week.”
• Sacred rule example: “I do not lie to protect myself or others from deserved accountability.”
• Trade-off rule example: “I will trade money for time up to $X per month if it protects family dinners.”

Step 3: Add three “if-then” scripts for predictable dilemmas

• “If a friend asks me to cover a lie, then I will refuse and offer help with an honest repair.”
• “If work expands into weekends, then I will renegotiate scope within two weeks.”
• “If I feel tempted to stay silent about harm, then I will take one step on the integrity ladder within 48 hours.”

Step 4: Include two concrete examples of how the charter guides decisions

• Example A (ambition vs. family): “I accepted a promotion only after setting a travel threshold and scheduling a 90-day review.”
• Example B (comfort vs. integrity): “I documented a questionable practice and asked a clarifying question before escalating.”

Step 5: Make it usable

• Keep it to one page.
• Use your own words (no slogans).
• Store it where decisions happen: notes app, wallet card, or pinned document.