“Wear your mask! You’re putting others at risk!” “No! They don’t do anything! You’re infringing on my rights!”
I hope I didn’t just make you all mad (sorry, love you), but I’d say the chances are pretty high that one of those two resonated with you, and quite strongly in many cases. But why is that? The answer is obvious! And if you don’t agree, you’re a blithering idiot!
Wait, I did it again. Sorry, I’m new at this… Why don’t you try watching this instead?
I didn’t come here to talk about masks, but imagine yourself watching to people arguing, sounding like the first line of this post. Did you notice something? They seem to be talking past one another. They aren’t really getting into the details of each other’s arguments and whether the data supports their assertions; they are talking specifically about their own values.
I came across this video the other week, and it’s been enlightening. Not because I subscribe to Moral Foundations Theory (I do not have enough expertise to comment on it), but I think it brings a useful idea to the table. What idea? That we might be talking past one another for the simple reason that we do not see the same things when we consider a situation, particularly one which strikes us at the level of morality.
That’s something that I desperately need to remember when I want to dismiss someone who disagrees anyone as an idiot. They think they are doing the right thing. And I hope that you can similarly remember that I am also trying to do the right thing.
I started this blog to engage with people. I have thoughts I want to discuss with my friends, and they all have thoughts they want to discuss with me. In order to start that, though, I had to think through rules of engagement, and these are what I came up with.
Moral Taste Buds
Though we all have taste buds, each of us experiences foods differently. Some love onions, some hate them. Pungent cheeses, salty olives, mushrooms, these things evoke different feelings in everyone. However, we all have taste buds that respond to saltiness or sweetness or sourness. The difference is how we react to them.
It’s a bit of a stretch, but what if we thought of flavors of morality? What if we thought of different dimensions of morality. Each event that we process on a moral level might feel right or wrong to us for specific reasons, because they touch certain values that we hold dear.
I feel the need to clarify 3 things from the get-go here:
- I am not passing judgment on any of these axes of morality. Each of them matters to us to some degree; the difference is usually one of emphasis. I note this because I will betray some of my own leanings in here., and I don’t want you to judge me (or your friends) just yet.
- Moral Foundations Theory is still in contention. There are competing theories, and I’m not qualified to comment on them. However, I want to name some concepts that will at least help you see others’ reasoning in a fairer light.
- I am not proposing moral relativism here. I do believe in right and wrong. This is restricted to how certain events may make us feel.
Here’s an exercise to help you see what I mean. These are the moral flavors described in the video. As I think you’ll see, all of us would agree about what is right when it is in these terms. Which ones guide your reactions to news and issues? Which most strongly propel you to act?
Care vs. Harm
You value cherishing and protecting others from harm. You react most strongly when others experience pain or suffering, no matter what the reasoning behind it. Caring and compassion are the virtues with which you identify.
Personally, I strongly identify with this one. I hate seeing others’ suffering, and I give freely of my own resources to alleviate it. Many of you do as well.
Fairness vs. Cheating
You value equality and believe that following the rules should yield the best result. You react most strongly when someone subverts the rules, gaining an advantage over others that they do not deserve, or when someone is treated preferentially despite doing something wrong. Justice is very important to you.
This one resonates with me, though in some ways just because I have a strong case of eldest sibling syndrome.
Loyalty vs. Betrayal
You believe that group membership carries with it some obligations. Members should be self-sacrificial, since they receive benefits from said membership, and they should be vigilant against betrayal.
Cooperation is weird from a game theory perspective; one member’s betrayal doesn’t mean much, but if everyone thought so, it would be very bad for the group (Elephants are fortunate that not many of them have figured this out).
Authority vs. Subversion
You value order and respect. Group members should defer to their superiors, affording them the respect and obedience they are due, since those people are looking out for the whole group and have a great deal of responsibility on their plate.
This one rings true for me in a surprising way. Though I don’t feel strongly about hierarchies for their own sake, I do care greatly for following expertise.
Sacredness vs. Degradation
You have standards of purity and sacredness, of disgust against contamination. Despite the label, this need not be religious; most of us have things we consider sacred or disgusting.
Liberty vs. Oppression
You value freedom from coercion and freedom of choice. You react strongly to people dominating or bullying others.
I’ll admit this one is not accepted by all of the Moral Foundations Theory literature, but I find it useful to bring up anyway. It certainly rings true for me, since I found myself the frequent target of bullying as a child. However, it may be the case that it is strongly correlated with the other axes of morality presented here.
The Takeaway
Whether or not you agree with those divisions or any other ideas from Moral Foundation Theory, hopefully that exercise helped you to think through the many different possible moral reactions to news and events.
If you remember nothing, remember this. You may differ from the person you’re arguing with, but remember that they are trying to be moral in the way they know how. There are people out there who really don’t care (and if you find yourself in dialogue with one, trust me, break it off for your own mental health), but most people aren’t like that. So my challenge to you would be to think of the people you care about, think about which trait they most value, and try to frame your discussions in their terms. Instead of expressing your arguments in the terms you find most convincing, try to frame it in terms of the moral values held by the people you’re trying to convince. Studies have suggested that doing this will make you more persuasive.
I would also caution you that politicians and sensationalists have known about these predilections for a long time, even if they did not know of a theoretical underpinning. So when you see an argument that is particularly persuasive to you, that hits all the right buttons, really stop to consider whether it is true, or whether someone spooked your elephant.
What this is not
Empathy is not endorsement. What I am asking you to do is to humanize the people you are arguing with, not to agree with them (unless you find they are right, then by all means, do agree with them). The person you are arguing with believes what they believe for a reason, and even if it’s a bad reason, they do not see it as such, so try to understand, listen, and adjust accordingly.
I am of course assuming you can do so without incurring a cost to your mental health. If you cannot, please, have a friend do this for you. Protect yourself, especially in times like these; there is a lot of verbal weaponry flying around, and there is no shame in taking a break from that.