I find that the most important distinction we’ve lost in modern discourse is the difference between virtue and value. Value focuses on outcomes, while virtue focuses on intentions. To act with virtue is to nurture a garden - tending carefully to growth without obsessing over the harvest. To create value is to build a greenhouse - engineering optimal conditions for maximum yield. To act with virtue is to provide for your family with love and care. To create value is to ensure your family has food, water, and shelter.

Both matter, but we’ve lost the language for one of them.

The discomfort of virtue talk

As a society, I believe we are far too focused on value and rarely talk about virtue because it’s a topic that makes us feel uncomfortable. We don’t like to talk about virtue because, ironically, it may feel unvirtuous in itself—like “virtue”-signaling. This discomfort has linguistic roots that run deeper than we realize.

The term “value” comes from the French word “valeur,” which originally meant both price and moral worth. From the beginning, virtue and value sought to be unified. From the definitions of value during the Enlightenment through Milton Friedman’s shareholder value doctrine to our modern “create value” paradigm, these two concepts have pursued a unification that has ultimately proved unhelpful. The conflation reached its peak when Friedman declared in 1970 that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” - essentially arguing that value creation was the highest virtue.

I believe this conflation has led to a meaningless distinction. Many powerful corporations create immense value, but they lack virtue - as exemplified by tech leaders who’ve built platforms worth hundreds of billions while knowing their products harm teenage mental health, or medical startups that promised revolutionary healthcare while systematically defrauding patients and investors.

Why kindness trumps correctness

Critics might argue that focusing on intentions over outcomes is naive - don’t results matter more than good intentions? But the Buddha would argue that it is better to be kind than to be correct because the kind person is always correct. This reveals something profound about human psychology: when we recognize someone is genuinely trying to do good, we forgive them and reward them for their efforts. However, by focusing primarily on correctness or outcomes, one demonstrates a lack of humility when they are inevitably wrong.

Modern psychology supports this ancient wisdom. Research consistently shows that people who perform acts of kindness experience measurable improvements in wellbeing, regardless of whether those acts achieve their intended outcomes. The intention itself transforms the actor. Cross-cultural studies reveal that while specific virtues vary by society, the emphasis on virtue-based thinking correlates with higher social trust and cooperation.

The complexity of human character

I do not deny that people are complex and multifaceted. I think it’s possible to have virtue in one domain and not in another. What I am arguing is that people should speak more of virtue so that we become more well-rounded individuals. Consider James Watson, who co-discovered DNA’s structure but harbored racist views that made him a pariah, or Elizabeth Holmes, who pursued the virtuous goal of democratizing healthcare but became so focused on creating value that she systematically defrauded investors and endangered patients.

I am sure these complicated people who had questionable personal ethics yet built wonderful innovations were not loved by those close to them, and they were not happy themselves. When we sacrifice virtue for value, we corrupt our capacity for genuine relationships and authentic self-understanding.

The Buddhist framework for intention

I live at a Zen temple, and one of the teachings of the Buddha is the Eightfold Path, which is essentially a framework for human flourishing. Right Intent is one part of the Eightfold Path. The Buddha argues that right intent in itself either causes or prevents suffering. A person with wrong intent would inevitably cause suffering to themselves and others because karma - simply cause and effect - will act upon them.

The Buddha took this principle to its furthest extent when he argued that karma operates even at the level of thought - that merely intending to do harmful things creates harmful consequences for the person themselves. Karma dulls your own experience with the stain of bad intentions.

To quote the Dhammapada: “The fool thinks he has won a battle when he bullies with harsh speech, but knowing how to be forbearing alone makes one victorious. The worst defeat for any person is self-hatred. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.”

What value means without virtue

What does it mean to create value when virtue doesn’t exist? To me, one cannot truly create value unless they practice virtue. The modern cases prove this point: when Facebook’s own research showed Instagram worsened teenage girls’ mental health, leadership chose engagement metrics over wellbeing. Boeing’s 737 MAX crashes killed 346 people because safety concerns were subordinated to competitive pressures. These weren’t failures of calculation but failures of character.

Yet when companies do practice virtue, remarkable things happen. When Johnson & Johnson immediately recalled 31 million Tylenol bottles worth over $100 million after seven people died from cyanide tampering in 1982, they prioritized protecting customers over protecting profits. The result? Long-term market leadership built on unshakeable trust.

A new phraseology: “Practice virtue”

I’d like to propose a new phraseology - “Practice virtue” - to work alongside the “create value” paradigm. “Practice” acknowledges the ongoing effort required, unlike “embody” which implies a fixed state we might pretend to achieve. It means to exist with the intent of doing good, beyond whatever outcome may be achieved.

This isn’t about abandoning value creation. Modern life requires outcomes, metrics, and results. But when value language becomes our only language, we lose access to essential human wisdom. We need bilingual fluency - speaking value when coordinating complex systems and speaking virtue when developing character and relationships.

The crisis of teaching value without virtue

I feel it is a crisis in our country that we’ve lost the vocabulary to discuss virtue alongside value. We may not say it explicitly, but everything we do signals that outcomes matter more than intentions. When we ask “What value does this create?” without also asking “What virtue does this develop?” we miss half the moral equation.

An easy first step to reorienting our “value system” is to focus more on the idea of virtue - to speak about it more, to say the word more, to ask about it more. Because the term “value” alone is not enough to guide us toward becoming the kinds of people we want to be, in the kinds of relationships we want to have, building the kinds of communities we want to live in.

The most radical act in our value-obsessed culture might be asking not just “What value will this create?” but “What kind of person will this help me become?” In that gap between value and virtue lies the space for becoming fully human.