We need balance in life, and in how we see life. Balance is essential to a healthy and well-ordered life.

• It is the same with people as it is with riding a bike. Only when moving can one comfortably maintain one’s balance. [Albert Einstein]
• The delicate balance of mentoring someone is not creating them in your own image, but giving them the opportunity to create themselves. [attributed to Steven Spielberg]
• My journey has always been the balance between chaos and order. [attributed to Philippe Petit]

To gain another perspective on human values, and life, consider the issue of balance. Life is like riding a bicycle: if we lose our balance, then we fall off. The consequences can range from a scraped knee to utter calamity. 

Balance implies a relationship, or set of relationships between and among the various elements and features in and of our lives. It can be dominated or influenced by context. Each aspect of balance will occupy its own space and time in our lives. 

This chapter raises planes of analysis in addition to those explored in other chapters. 

• Internal/cognitive (soul, spirit, meaning) versus external/active (reason, courage, Faith) versus mixed (motivation, purpose); 
• Tangible versus symbolic: this plane is especially difficult to pin down, because all of our values are symbolic, but to the extent that they are expressed in action, they are relatively more tangible; on the other hand, technologies such as real-time MRI of the brain now allow us to see the tangible side of thoughts and feelings.
• Static versus dynamic, though a strong case can be made that all of our values are dynamic, both in their underlying internal character, and as we express them. On the other hand, people who are highly consistent in their values could be said to be relatively more static than those whose values, thoughts, feelings, and actions change more noticeably over time.

There are two kinds of balance: psychological balance and life balance.

Psychological balance

A leading work on psychological balance, which is “a dynamic state characterized by relatively stable characteristics that can adapt to change”, summarizes the matter: “There were statistically significant associations between Consistency (i.e., degree of integration of a universal value structure as self-related characteristics that motivate personal goals and behavior), Flexibility (i.e., degree of ability to re-define meaningful and important goals in response to situational challenge), and five well-being variables (e.g., Meaning in Life). Self/Others Ratio (i.e., ratio of motivation to serve self-interest and the interest of others), operationalized as a binary variable (e.g., close and away from 1), moderated some of these associations.” Psychological balance is internal, i.e., within self; it directly reflects how we see things. A psychological balance scale has been developed. As we venture into higher levels of ethical development, and into the creative forces, we see fewer and fewer counterpart values, probably because the values already incorporate both sides.

Consistency stands in contrast with inconsistency, i.e., a lack of integration, wholeness, or “agreement” within the self. Internal inconsistency disrupts balance. “At all levels of information processing in the brain, neural and cognitive structures tend towards a state of consistency. When two or more simultaneously active cognitive structures are logically inconsistent, arousal is increased, which activates processes with the expected consequence of increasing consistency and decreasing arousal. Increased arousal is experienced as aversive, while the expected or actual decrease in arousal as a result of increased consistency is experienced as rewarding. Modes of resolution of inconsistency can be divided into purely cognitive solutions, such as changing an attitude or an associated motor plan, and behavioural solutions, such as exploration, aggression, fear, and feeding.” Seen broadly enough and within a framework centered on intrinsic worth, consistency is an unalloyed good. However, if any element of mental values processing is unhealthy, then inconsistency will arise: the nature and extent of the damage that it will inflict is a function of what is off balance. Seen more narrowly, this might be described as an unhealthy consistency, but that would reflect an incomplete view of consistency.

Flexibility can never be an unalloyed good. There is such a thing as being too flexible, such as being so open-minded that your brains fall out, or compromising with evil in such a way that it is encouraged and empowered. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler is a case in point. Moral flexibility can always be assessed in comparison with and in contrast to scrupulousness. Whether we can ethically compromise our scruples depends on how broad a view we take of them, and how relatively absolute they are. This is the central problem of the lifeboat dilemma: under what circumstances should an innocent person’s life be sacrificed? The main challenges for most people are to see the matter broadly enough (1) to recognize that any course of action or inaction will affect everyone on the lifeboat, and (2) to see the consequences of decisions broadly enough so that they honor everyone’s intrinsic worth, not only the person who by outward appearances is most directly and most profoundly affected. In every dynamic of flexibility-scrupulousness, an outward manifestation is always present. We can also consider and address flexibility in several additional ways, all of which can be considered in the flexible-scrupulous dynamic:

• Ideals versus practicality: Ideals relate to a desired state of affairs, usually one that does not (yet) exist. Practicality is a strategy for tempering our ideals, of necessity, to consider the overarching reality that is greater than the moral actor-protagonist. Practicality is useful when it helps us advance our ideals. An example is the Bernie Sanders Presidential candidacy in the United States. Sanders’ supporters argued that voters should not compromise their ideals. However, many people whose hearts were with Sanders did not support his election: they recognized that he was not likely to win, and that even if he did win, his Presidency would compromise their and his long-term ideals. Bernie Sanders could not have gotten his legislative proposals enacted without Congressional support. Most of his major proposals did not have enough support to win enactment. Meanwhile, voters tend to blame the party of the sitting President when they think that the country is on the wrong track. Therefore, the most likely outcome of a Sanders presidency would have been the loss of Congressional power in the midterm elections, with potentially disastrous consequences for the Sanders movement. (Think of how Jimmy Carter tried to take on big oil and other monied interests, lost those battles, and came to be seen as a weak President; and how the election of Ronald Reagan followed, with long-term consequences inimical to Carter’s ideals, such as treating the fossil fuel issue as the moral equivalent of war.) This illustrates the point that political movements must be built from the ground up, and will fail if they are not. An exception is dictatorships, but even there, loss of support will eventually cause the regime to collapse. However, there is evidence that Sanders’ candidacy advanced his ideals, but only because he did not win. How is this different from Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler: Hitler might have been stopped with a united Europe but given the political realities in the United States during Carter’s presidency, there was no realistic chance of stopping big oil in the ways that Carter wanted to do. People wanted cheap oil, and were not inclined to think first about their grandchildren. The rise of the far right in the United States can well be analyzed as a matter of which side saw the practical realities more clearly; both sides had their ideals, though many people would not call a desire for power and control and ideal (it is, because it pertains to what people on the far right conceive of as a desirable state of affairs). The balance between ideals and practicality is complicated and tricky.
• Taking risks versus being cautious: Life presents us with choices between taking risks and being cautious, routinely, or we could say constantly. A risk may be external (e.g., taking out a loan to open a business) or internal (e.g., the emotional investment someone makes in a romantic relationship, which can be independent of and vastly different from the external actions associated with that investment). It may be a large risk or a small one. Sometimes, caution is the greater risk, such as when a person decides not to undergo surgery; however, that decision is cautious only as it relates to the risks of surgery, not as it relates to treatment for cancer. Sometimes, as in the example of cancer surgery, action can be more cautious than inaction.
• Being stable/constant versus changing (displaying dynamism): We are constantly faced with choices to remain the same or change. A change can be internal, such as changing one’s mind; or external, such as divorcing a spouse. However, people who change their minds are likely to change their actions too; and people who file for divorce churn inside before, during, and after the filing. People assess how well their situation and strategies suit them, and decide to change or not based on the issues involved, their life consequences (including the attendant risks that come with each course of action), issues of space (should someone run for board of education, or for President of the United States?) and time (is changing jobs worth it, when someone has only one year left until retirement?)

Meaning: What constitutes a healthy balance in someone’s life is a function of the meaning that person attaches to the various elements in life. A professional musician may be balanced in spending three hours per day practicing. Probably this would be an excessive amount of time for a high school band member with no musical aspirations beyond the high school band. Most professional musicians probably would consider eight hours of practice per day to be excessive but if a musician continued to improve by practicing for that long, then eight hours of practice per day could reflect a healthy balance, especially if the musician enjoyed it. After all, people routinely work for eight hours or more per day.

One person might consider devoting attention to a spouse for three hours per day to reflect an excellent life balance. Another person might be revulsed by that, seeing it as reflecting unhealthy dependence. Neither of them is necessarily right or wrong but the difference between two romantic partners in the meaning they attach to their relationship can be a troubling and in some cases a relationship-ending matter of contention. They do not want the same – or we might say compatible – balances in their lives.

A foodie might spend eight hours every day in the kitchen. If the time is spent cooking, that might reflect a balanced life, but if the foodie spends eight hours a day eating, that would reflect a life that is seriously out of balance – not because of the activity itself but because of the adverse effects of habitual overeating.

Young people incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to obtain an advanced education. For some of them, the investment might be worth it; others may regret having made it.

How much time is someone best advised to spend exercising on an average day? How much time should be devoted to sleeping? How much time is a person best advised to spend on social media, or playing video games, if any? The answers will depend on where these activities fit into each person’s life, and the meaning they bring forth.

Life balance

“Balance in life . . . is defined as a state reflecting satisfaction or fulfillment in several important domains with little or no negative affect in other domains. Achieving balance in life allows people to satisfy the full spectrum of human development needs, both basic and growth needs, which in turn contributes to long-term happiness.” In contrast with psychological balance, life balance is comparatively external, i.e., it extends outside self to the material aspects of life. Like psychological balance, it too reflects how we see things but is not confined to that. A balanced life consists of several components, including the following.

• Of all the balance-in-life issues, work/life balance (WLB) is the most extensively considered. WLB can be defined operationally as “(t)he individual’s perception that work and non-work activities are compatible and promote growth in accordance with an individual’s current life priorities.” Perhaps a better definition is that WLB refers to a balance that is in fact healthy, not merely that the individual perceives it that way. There are other definitions and considerations. At least one scholarly paper identifies work/family balance and work/health balance, though those are contained within WLB. “Work-life balance is crucial for individuals to manage their professional responsibilities alongside personal commitments.” “. . . low work–life balance (WLB) can be harmful to health.” Workers with healthy WLB are more productive. Telecommunications offer an opportunity for individuals to change, and society to transform WLB.
• Work/play is a work-life issue but is presented as a separate category only because play is commonly seen as a distinction from work.
• Activity/rest: Part II of this book is devoted entirely to active values. Chapter 5 of Part IV is devoted to restoration. When we think of values, we think mainly of the values described in Part II, but we spend much of our time restoring ourselves, including the time we spend sleeping.
• Restoring/depleting: we spend much of our time exhausting ourselves. We work, study, exercise, and pursue goals. Restoration, which includes resting, relaxing, sleeping, and playing, offers a necessary antidote to that. This is another approach to the distinction between being active and resting.
• Being resolute/Accepting: We may be resolute about many things, and express it by persevering, being determined, being motivated and driven, and in many other ways. Still, we need space to accept, and to surrender to the things we cannot change.
• Serious/light-hearted: This dimension is mainly internal, more than with the other dimensions.