Some thoughts about moral struggle
I find myself believing that our most important human skill, at this moment in history, is our ability to wrestle, through language, with questions of meaning and direction. This gives us the greatest likelihood of arriving at consensus. And, even if disagreements remain, and it is necessary to solve them by means of a vote, our decisions can be based on information that comes from putting our best words and thoughts to the test.
Some of my heroes in this endeavor are the champions of civil rights, in the 60s, who demonstrated the power of moral strength to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. One of their virtues, it seems to me, was their ability to distinguish between merely physical and moral struggles, and to insist on the possibility of pursuing their goals through moral persuasion, rather than merely physical strength.
To sharpen my awareness of what this might mean in our present society, with its various heated debates, I have put together the following observations about what differentiates a moral struggle from a merely physical one. I have decided to look at this by asking the question, "What constitutes failure in a merely physical struggle, and what are some things that constitute failure in a moral one?"
How to fail in a merely physical struggle:
1) Succumb to the strength of your opponent, as a result of your own lack of strength, willingness, or ability to continue the fight.
How to fail in a moral struggle. (This is a situation in which you believe you have a right perspective that is being resisted or not acknowledged by an opponent. Any one of the following can constitute defeat, to one degree or another.):
1) Treating your opponent with less respect than you would expect for yourself.
2) Relying on fallacious reasoning or erroneous facts, and not being open to correction of these when they are made apparent.
3) Being unwilling to commend your opponent or their position where it is, in fact, commendable.
4) Treating your opponent as though they are incapable of reasonable conversation or of learning.
5) Attacking your opponent with an aim other than that of advancing the discussion.
6) Pretending to care about the original argument while actually caring about guarding the appearance of one's own strength. Caring more about "being right" than in getting closer to what is true and helpful.
7) Not leaving ways in which your opponent might "save face," when it is possible to do so without forsaking the aims of the argument.
8) Distracting your opponent by charging them with things they have no possibility of changing.
9) Failing to acknowledge difficulties that may be involved in the changes you are asking your opponent to make; not scrutinizing one's self to appreciate how, if you were in your opponent's shoes, you might also be reluctant to change.
10) Failing to realize that change, for your opponent, might be more difficult than just "changing one's mind," in light of "proof." Whatever their beliefs, they are part of a network of ideas that make sense out of the universe in which they live. However inadequate one's beliefs may ultimately prove to be, they may nonetheless be the glue of their personal, family and cultural identity (or, just as significant, an expression of a heroic attempt to break free of those ties). Beliefs can not just be abandoned or changed without assurance that something equally stabilizing will be there to replace them, or that one can tolerate the discomfort introduced by new uncertainty. Beliefs are rarely just a response to "facts"; they are elements of deeper meaning and orientation. To not recognize this is to treat your opponent more like a machine than a human being.
11) Mistaking a moral struggle for a merely physical one: "Might makes right."
12) (Perhaps the most important...) losing courage and confidence in the possibility of attaining one's end through moral struggle, and so reverting to the rules for a merely physical one. While this may at times be inevitable, it remains lamentable from the standpoint of a moral struggle.
To sharpen my awareness of what this might mean in our present society, with its various heated debates, I have put together the following observations about what differentiates a moral struggle from a merely physical one. I have decided to look at this by asking the question, "What constitutes failure in a merely physical struggle, and what are some things that constitute failure in a moral one?"
How to fail in a merely physical struggle:
1) Succumb to the strength of your opponent, as a result of your own lack of strength, willingness, or ability to continue the fight.
How to fail in a moral struggle. (This is a situation in which you believe you have a right perspective that is being resisted or not acknowledged by an opponent. Any one of the following can constitute defeat, to one degree or another.):
1) Treating your opponent with less respect than you would expect for yourself.
2) Relying on fallacious reasoning or erroneous facts, and not being open to correction of these when they are made apparent.
3) Being unwilling to commend your opponent or their position where it is, in fact, commendable.
4) Treating your opponent as though they are incapable of reasonable conversation or of learning.
5) Attacking your opponent with an aim other than that of advancing the discussion.
6) Pretending to care about the original argument while actually caring about guarding the appearance of one's own strength. Caring more about "being right" than in getting closer to what is true and helpful.
7) Not leaving ways in which your opponent might "save face," when it is possible to do so without forsaking the aims of the argument.
8) Distracting your opponent by charging them with things they have no possibility of changing.
9) Failing to acknowledge difficulties that may be involved in the changes you are asking your opponent to make; not scrutinizing one's self to appreciate how, if you were in your opponent's shoes, you might also be reluctant to change.
10) Failing to realize that change, for your opponent, might be more difficult than just "changing one's mind," in light of "proof." Whatever their beliefs, they are part of a network of ideas that make sense out of the universe in which they live. However inadequate one's beliefs may ultimately prove to be, they may nonetheless be the glue of their personal, family and cultural identity (or, just as significant, an expression of a heroic attempt to break free of those ties). Beliefs can not just be abandoned or changed without assurance that something equally stabilizing will be there to replace them, or that one can tolerate the discomfort introduced by new uncertainty. Beliefs are rarely just a response to "facts"; they are elements of deeper meaning and orientation. To not recognize this is to treat your opponent more like a machine than a human being.
11) Mistaking a moral struggle for a merely physical one: "Might makes right."
12) (Perhaps the most important...) losing courage and confidence in the possibility of attaining one's end through moral struggle, and so reverting to the rules for a merely physical one. While this may at times be inevitable, it remains lamentable from the standpoint of a moral struggle.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment.