summary of the values question

Human beings are value-laden and are embodied with values, that are often contradictory values, but whose values are superior and applicable?

As all human beings have values that they adopted.  They are taught values by the people who raise them, their community, home and country. They are indoctrinated in their education, the collective history, psychology and culture.  In time, some read different views and prospects and learn to challenge.

As all human beings are value-laden and are embodied with values, the research methods and methodological approaches that seek to study and understand them have to be value-laden. 

This is the qualitative post-positivistic view that challenged the positivistic view of modern science that sought to detach the research from the researcher and use objective and neutral and unbiased means to study the subject of the research.  The post-positivists argue that all is meshed up - the research, researcher, and researched and cannot be separated.

However which and whose values are to be used?  What are the method's embodied values? Whose values are superior? The enlightened liberal democratic ones?  the nationalist? the devoted religious? the secular? the hardcore Communist of the past? the fascist? Who decides and criteria?

That is the question I was problematizing as I was reflecting on my own work of developing and testing my applied dialectical method for the study and conceptualization of the phenomenon of being human through human beings producing accounts of their cyclic, dialectical, reflective and dialogical enquiries into the question, how do I lead a more meaningful life for myself and reverse and qualitatively transform my experience of dissatisfaction into a more fulfilling life for myself in and with the world? 

Are MY secular liberal democratic values of dignity, humanity, equality, growth, empowerment and wellbeing for all the method's values? What right do I have to impose these values of mine?  What do I do when I read applied dialectical accounts wherein racist and Nazis and religious fundamentalists use my method to justify and reinforce their values as a way to live a more meaningful life in the world.  Except being depressed and utterly sickened.  

What do we about propaganda and indoctrination? What do we do about pressure to conform, especially during times of ethnic and national conflicts?  critical reflection? How? And the risk of being rejected and scolded by the community in a democracy, like Israel, or an autocracy and authoritarian regime where one's life is in serious danger when challenging the regime's embodied values, alongside the lives of his/her loved ones?

Is anyone that courageous, or fool? Who is courageous? What does it take to be courageous, or fool? Is wanting to be accepted by the community a value in its own right?  Is standing up for what one feels to be right and just, even to the point of conflict and alienation from his/her community also a value?  Is loyalty to one's community at times of hardship a value? Which contradictory value is superior? Is everything values? Is there anything that is not value-laden and value guided and led?  How far is one to go for his or her values? Which is wise? Which one is a fool?