Global Values in a Local World

Leaders have been wrestling with core values since the Greeks invented the idea of the good life as something that only organizations can provide. Rational thought, they argued, can settle any dispute. After all, everyone is human, so, of course, everyone wants the same things.

But that was only true as long as "everyone" was a free Greek citizen. History reveals a long and troubled conflict about core values. Christianity dominated much of Europe and beyond in the early Middle Ages, but by 715, nascent Islam had taken hold of areas south and east of the Mediterranean, and even most of Spain. With little warning, the world order had changed. And the new challenger carried an entirely different sense of how things did -- or should -- work. In the back-and-forth of conflict, core values were unheard of. Beliefs and values not only conflicted, they also called for battle. Looked at one way, history is the story of people who seem happier to be defined by their differences than to be joined by what they share.

In fact, on the next to last day of the seminar, the differences erupt into the open. Fatma A. Karume, a lawyer from Tanzania, is sick of white, Western people telling her -- "telling Africa" -- what to do. She speaks with the voice of the Muslim world that wants an end to the American Empire and globalization. Tom Swartele, the CEO of North American operations for Bongrain SA, the multinational food conglomerate, is the beneficiary of cultural dissension. Growing up in Belgium, Swartele initially spoke only Dutch. But in a country where Flemmish and French cultures compete, he became fluent in both languages -- which ultimately has brought him more opportunities. His wealth and stature are a result.

Nussbaum has been waiting for this melee, for the moment when the class would display the kind of chaos that's loose in the world. She then asks the key question: "What would a moral global system look like? A United States of the World? How does one get there? How is one to think?"

Her answer: the "capabilities approach," a set of universal values that includes the right to life, the right to bodily health and integrity, the right to participate in political affairs, and the right to hold property. "We reasonably disagree about many matters," Nussbaum says. "That is why freedom of religion and freedom of speech and association are so very important. Each person ought to search for the meaning of life in his or her own way, using the resources of whatever religious or philosophical tradition he or she likes. For political purposes, we can also agree to endorse a common core of basic principles of justice. But I do not think that political philosophers should be in the business of recommending a fully comprehensive account of the human good, because that would suggest disrespect for religion."

In the end, Nussbaum says, people risk their lives for justice every day. Justice is a form of love -- and that is the emotion at the core of all values. "We have to love people and things outside our own will," she says, "and this means that we have to have fear, hope, and grief."

As we approach the one-year mark of America's greatest modern tragedy, it's worth remembering Nussbaum's admonition: "We begin our lives ... loving our parents, fearing their departure, angry at our inability to command fully the things that we need. In these weaknesses we find the strength of our relation to the world" -- and to each other.

Harriet Rubin (hrubin@fastcompany.com) is a Fast Company senior writer. Find a catalog of her columns, click here.