Thanks @Kirsten for starting this thread and sorry for taking so long to respond. I meant to get to it sooner as I believe this is a critical issue and it would benefit us greatly to have our values defined. IMHO open and participatory forum is the only acceptable way to define any governing principle.
As anyone who read the other threads you refer to no doubt deduced, I have strong and definite opinions when it comes to values. It is something I spent a lot of time thinking about and through a long deductive process I have arrived at a single maxim which can be used to gauge any query or question pertaining to ethics and values. I use it in my own life and I am happy to share it here. It is sometimes called Universal law or natural law and it states:
‘You are free to express yourself in any way you wish provided you don’t knowingly inhibit the ability of another to express themselves in any way they wish.’
Simplicity being the pinnacle of complexity, this simple statement is all encompassing. I have seen attempts at reducing it to state: “Do no harm” but that opens the debate as to what constitutes harm.
Universal law can be used then to evaluate any organisation (organisations have mission statements and are legally described in terms of their function) and the actions of any individual. For example, we want a partner organisation to be non-profit. That immediately excludes all profit driven corporations because a corporation can not deviate from it’s primary definition which is to return a profit and profit implies advantageous gain. For one party to be at an advantage, the other has to be at a disadvantage. Therefore all corporations are in violation of natural law. An organisation which functions on the principle of fair exchange and cooperation on the other hand passes the bar.
In terms of acceptance criteria we could be a tad more specific though.
I agree with points 1 and 2 as is and will attempt to shape point 3 a bit.
- Should any group member query the suitability of a potential partner organisation based on group values, the organisation must clearly and publicly state it’s position regrading the issue which raised the query.
One more point I would like to clarify as it is something which was raised a couple of times, is the issue of non-violence. I realise it is a bit off topic - sorry.
Non-violence principle states that one will not INITIATE violence. It does not mean that one has to meekly accept violence being done to the self or others in the interest of not being violent. This belief is a perversion of non-violence. Violence as a defensive tactic is perfectly acceptable under the non-violence principle. Allowing violence to be done to the self or others in fact violates the principle of non-violence because it not only implies consent but also tacit complicity. If you do not resist the attacker, you are aiding him.
Out planet and society is under constant attack from hierarchies which seek to dominate, exploit and subjugate through coercion, violence deceit and manipulation (a subtle form of violence) and we have the inalienable sovereign right to defend ourselves from this violent attack by creating alternative systems, speaking out against the hierarchies in terms as strong as those they use and, if need be, using physical counter violence.
Thanks all.