“If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be
for or against. The struggle between “for” and “against” is the mind’s worst
disease.”
----Sent-ts’an, 700 BC
I like that quote though I’m still discovering what it
means. It reminds me specifically of the sociopolitical climate in the United
States. Being away from the US, even in the UK, has been a breath of fresh air
because though we have divisive politics and polarising contention in the UK, it
is not to the extreme as that in the U.S. I’m reminded about the moderation of
John Stewart in trying to steer the U.S. away from the media-framing dichotomy
of “left” and “right” or “black” and “white” or monotonous dipolarism of the
24/7 news cycle.
I can’t remember a topic when there were only two sides, two
views. I can’t remember a platform, party, or group that ever fully represented
all of me. I can’t remember enjoying any group I was not allowed to question
while simultaneously being a supporter. We seem to have popularised and
supported the two-sided debate not just in our politics but also in our news
coverage of any story, even in the classroom, even over the dinner table. If
ever there was an amazing example of a successfully pervasive educational
campaign, the infiltration of the dipolar debate into all aspects of society is
a perfect case study. Sadly, especially in society’s news, it dehumanizes a
rather colourful rainbow of citizens with varying concerns, investments, and
most importantly various stories.
In learning to recognize the range of opinions,
socioeconomic options, and political choices, you have to recognize that the
two sides “conservative” and “liberal” often speak from differing moral bases.
I saw a great talk on
TED a few years ago by psychologist John Haidt who talks about the five
different moral value roots: harm/care, justice/equality, authority,
loyalty, and purity/sanctity. What I’ve often seen is that you have two people:
John and Sarai. John, operating from a moral basis of justice and care for
others, tries to convince Sarai of some policy like universal health care. But Sarai’s
moral basis is more about purity, authority, and loyalty. She may understand
justice and care for others but she may rank them lower below other moral
values. However, John not realizing this, continues to huff and puff to no
avail. Finally, after Sarai still doesn’t see his point, he walks away
exasperated, fatigued, and more confused than ever before. They both seek good
but through different moral value rankings.
Someone who values security much more than justice or
fairness would be willing to treat people unfairly as long as it keeps society
safe. Someone who values justice, fairness, or equality more important than
security would be willing to treat people the same, impartially, even in
insecure times. Some people think security comes when you treat people
(especially the insecure, whether its food insecure, energy insecure, water
insecure, etc.) with fairness and justice and love. Everyone has different
ranking systems.
So John Haidt astutely shows how people labeled as “conservatives” tend to register and understand all five of those broad moral values (justice, care, authority, loyalty, and purity) while those labeled as “liberals” tend to understand the first two mostly (justice and care). Therefore “liberals” are usually at a disadvantage in such exchanges because they have difficulty in understanding arguments by “conservatives” based on authority, in-group loyalty, or purity whereas “conservatives” have a much broader value channel. This causes problems when communicating, negotiating, and deliberating. This leads to us-them mentalities, good-vs-bad frameworks, and good-guys-vs-evil-bad-guys narratives. It’s quite easy to arrive at this point and even natural.
However to shed self-righteousness and moral authority, in
some sense we have to be able to enter into some type of moral humility. In
fact, as John Haidt says, the Dalai Lama’s moral authority probably comes
foremost from his moral humility. It’s a beautiful example of receiving
something (moral authority) by letting it go and not looking for it. People
always confuse this issue and say, “if moral humility means not believing
something is right or wrong, that’s wrong, and I’m not about to let go of
what’s right to be wrong.” This misses the point, being morally humble doesn’t
mean you do not believe anything or have no notions or conceptions about right
and wrong. Moral humility, rather, is about how you hold onto those notions and
conceptions and your treatment and consideration of others with differing
notions and conceptions.
Learning to understand that people who disagree with you may
have a reason for disagreeing with you other than just being evil people is a
huge step to understanding their motivation and opening them up to
understanding yours. This is what I mean by moral humility. Sure, you will find
mentally insane people, evil people, sadistically hedonistic people. However,
there are a lot of people who are doing things you consider wrong thinking they
are right. In learning that and being willing to look at the world from their
eyes, you do the world, yourself, and peace, a great deal of good. It’s
something with which I still struggle and on which I am still working today.
