What is Value Education?

Value Education is a stimulated process through which we impart value-based education.

The idea is about the educational procedure that ingrains moral guidelines to make
progressively polite and majority rule social orders.

Values education along these lines advances resilience and comprehension well beyond
our political, social, and strict contrasts, putting extraordinary accentuation on the barrier of
human rights, the insurance of ethnic minorities and the most helpless gatherings, and the
preservation of nature.

The objective is that kids in the future add to society through great citizenship and morals.
Moral education and character education, morals, and theory-based training have
endeavored to do comparable things. Such education should assume a significant job in
making an understudy socially capable, socially rich, just and firm.

Values and self development

People put a high value on education—up to a point. You go to school all through your
childhood, then—for physicians—complete undergraduate and medical degrees as well as
a residency to be able to do what you do. However, many people stop actively seeking to
learn, develop, and grow different areas of their lives and interests when they graduate and
move into the workforce.

The most successful business people and medical professionals out there, however, never
stop learning, and I don’t just mean continuing education or studying for boards. Self-
improvement and personal growth are an important, and highly valuable, part of your career
and life in general.

Social values and individual attitudes.

Values and attitudes are major components in a person’s character and personality. Though these
two are inter-related concepts, there is a distinct difference between values and attitudes.

The main difference between values and attitudes is that values are built upon one’s moral
attributes while attitudes are the standpoints one has regarding various issues.
Nevertheless, attitudes build up in accordance with one’s values.
What are Values?
We can define values as the moral principles or standards of behaviour. Thus, values often stand
as the moral ethics of a person or a society. In brief, values are those what are known as the code
of conduct for a person.
Thus, they are the fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate the attitudes or actions of a person.
Values are highlighted under ethical studies. Moreover, family, religion, culture, and moral
figures in the society strongly influence the values. Hence, values serve as the guiding principles
for a person in their lives.

What are Attitudes

Attitudes are judgments, standpoints or opinions about a certain subject matter or a person. These
standpoints or opinions are formed based upon that person’s values and emotions. In brief,
attitudes are the personal responses according to that person’s preference.

Accordingly, two people can have negative attitudes or positive attitudes on the same subject.
For instance, consider the varied attitudes people have on social issues such as matrimony,
abortions, homosexuality, etc. Also, how a person responds to a situation reflects that person’s
attitudes.
What is work ethic?
Work ethic is a set of standards of behavior and beliefs regarding what is and isn't
acceptable to do at work.

Work ethic can be strong (good) or poor (bad), it depends on personal views of
employees, their motivation, and overall company culture.

A strong work ethic is an attitude an employee applies to their work that indicates a
high level of passion for any work they do.

A bad work ethic is an attitude that an employee demonstrates that shows a lack of
ambition and professionalism in the workplace.

People with a strong work ethic often seem as though they have a competitive spirit,
although their competitiveness is often within themselves to achieve their goals
within their occupation.

Those individuals with a strong work ethic often present themselves as ‘ideal
employees’ because their drive for success leads them to work to achieve one goal
after another.

Work ethic can be nurtured, although it’s often a part of an individual’s character and
overall outlook on life.
Indian vision of humanism
Integral humanism was a set of concepts drafted by Deendayal Upadhyaya as a political program and adopted in
1965 as the official doctrine of the Jan Sangh and later BJP.[1] Upadhyaya borrowed the Gandhian principles such
as sarvodaya (progress of all), swadeshi (domestic), and Gram Swaraj (village self rule) and these principles were
appropriated selectively to give more importance to cultural-national values. These values were based on an
individual's undisputed subservience to nation as a corporate entity. [2]
The creation and adoption of these concepts helped to suit the major discourses in the Indian political arena of 1960s
and 1970s. This highlighted efforts to portray the Jan Sangh and Hindu nationalist movement as a high profile right
fringe of the Indian political mainstream. A major change here in compared to Golwalkar's works was the use of the
word "Bhartiya" which Richard Fox had translated as "Hindian", combination of Hindu Indian. Due to the official
secularism in politics, it had become impossible to invoke explicit reference to "Hindu" and the usage of the word
Bhartiya allowed to circumvent this political reality.[3]
Moral and a non - moral valuation

“Moral” was linked to “ethical” and vice versa. The only way out of this circularity
was linking one or the other of these terms to “good and bad,” “right and wrong,”
“duty,” and so forth. Yet, these latter terms, in turn, were linked back to the original
terms.

The definition of a term, to be helpful, must, in a sense, be circular since no more or

less than what the term means should be indicated by the definition. However, the
lexical definitions I consulted are viciously circular—the meaning of “moral” would
have to be known already in order to understand the definition. Not surprisingly, the
author of our text, John Hospers, merely indicates that the distinction between
“moral” and “nonmoral” is not a sharp one to many persons.

To suppose that the distinction between “moral” and “nonmoral” can be made on
the basis of conscience, intuition, revelation, or feeling, is, in my opinion, a serious
mistake because, since different people differ in conscience, intuition, revelation,
and feeling, the distinction between the terms would essentially be subjective. This
state of affairs would imply that when we use the words “ought,” “right,” “duty,”
and so forth, these words would have no public meaning. The possibility of having an
ethical theory would be undermined.

For these reasons, I believe that if a distinction between the terms can be made, the
distinction must be based on ordinary language. By looking at the situations in which
these terms are used, the only non-viciously circular use I am aware of is in referring
to the consequences of the behavior and character of human beings. If no human
being existed on this earth, I do not believe that we would say morals or ethics
existed.
standard and principles
Jennifer Ward has another take on it: values lead to norms, which lead to the formation of principles and
standards, which ultimately result in established norms, either new or reinforced. Principles are more
broad, less defined, while standards are clear benchmarks to be used for assessing effectiveness (Gill,
Kuwahara, & Wilce, 2016). Standards are also an attempt to operationalize values and re-establish
norms, to make them consistent across the board, so that they reflect shared values. While values appear
to be the foundation, and standards and norms are ultimately produced, the concepts do not always
follow a linear narrative. Additionally, standards and principles are sometimes created in an effort to
produce an established set of norms: an agreed upon set. Overall, the concepts move from theoretical
(values and norms)à operational (principles and standards).

Value judgment

The term value judgment can be used objectively to refer to any injunction that implies an obligation to carry out an
act, implicitly involving the terms "ought" or "should". It can be used either in a positive sense, signifying that a
judgment must be made taking a value system into account, or in a disparaging sense, signifying a judgment made
by personal whim rather than objective thought or evidence.[1]
In its positive sense, a recommendation to make a value judgment is an admonition to consider carefully, to avoid
whim and impetuousness, and search for consonance with one's deeper convictions, and to search for an
objective, verifiable, public, and consensual set of evidence for the opinion.
In its disparaging sense the term value judgment implies a conclusion is insular, one-sided, and not objective —
contrasting with judgments based upon deliberation, balance and public evidence.
Value judgment also can refer to a tentative judgment based on a considered appraisal of the information at hand,
taken to be incomplete and evolving—for example, a value judgment on whether to launch a military attack or as to
procedure in a medical emergency.[2] In this case the quality of judgment suffers because the information available is
incomplete as a result of exigency, rather than as a result of cultural or personal limitations.