A few years ago, Holland got embroiled in a battle over the
erection of a Peace Totem Pole in one of our city parks. At first blush, this seems the ultimate of
ironies. After all, who could be against peace? However, if we dig a bit
deeper, such controversies reveal an important verity of human nature.
In short, erecting a Peace Totem Pole implies that peace is
the only or maybe the supreme virtue. Is it?
Why peace? Is it first among
equals?
Peace certainly is a desirable societal attribute, but it is
not the only one. Another would be
justice. Notice that there is a natural
tension between these two virtues. In order to achieve justice, peace may be
violated, and likewise if peace is maintained at any cost, justice may be
compromised.
Thus to erect a Peace Totem Pole without one for justice (among
others) next to it would seemingly imply that peace is the only – or at least
the supreme – virtue. It might be the
top of the list for some, but others might give another virtue that privileged
position. Hence the debate.
This example illustrates that conflicts involving values and
ethics do not arise from denying the existence of any particular virtue (we’d
all prefer to have both peace and justice), but instead are concerned with which
of these positive attributes should have priority when one must choose between
them.
Psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt makes this point in
his book, The Righteous Mind. He
explains that what really divides us is not that we have different values, but that
we give our common values different priorities.
Haidt illustrates that in the same way that our tongues can sense five
different tastes – sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and savory, so also we can all sense
five moral flavors: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Moral
conflicts arise not because we disagree that each is good, but instead because
we disagree as to which should have priority in any given situation.
Consider an example of teenage twins who are watching their
five-year-old brother one afternoon until their parents return. The child
complains that he’s hungry and (without other food available) the twins are aware
of a package of cookies they have been told not to open. What then to do? One
thinks they should open the package and give a cookie to the hungry brother.
The other is equally sure that they should obey their parents’ instructions and
wait for their return.
The important thing to note here is that both twins want to
do the right thing. More specifically, they both want to assuage their
brother’s hunger, and they both want to obey their parents’ instructions. The
difference in opinion is only about which of these competing desires to follow.
One of the twins is focusing on “care” while the other is focusing on “authority.”
Similarly, think of your favorite social conflict and you
will likely see this same dynamic at work.
Consider the current debate about what to do with illegal immigrants. Those
who are in favor of giving them a path towards citizenship may be focusing on care.
Those who would deport them are concentrating on fairness and authority.
For a local example, consider Holland City Council’s 2011
vote on the ordinance amendment prohibiting discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity. It may
be that those in favor of it were focusing on care and fairness, while those
opposed to it based their decision on authority (of God) and purity. (It may be that those voting against were also
motivated by care and fairness for landlords.
This shows another reason for moral conflicts: With whom do we empathize?
This will be addressed in a future column.)
Nonetheless, it seems likely that it is not a difference in kind, but
merely a difference in degree – in priority – that led the council members to
vote as they did.
Rodney King famously asked, “Why can’t we all just get
along?” One of the keys to Abraham Lincoln’s wisdom
and leadership was his ability to see the commonalities between him and his
opponents. Similarly, realizing that we
all share the same moral tastes - just giving them different priorities – may
help us understand each other a bit better, and may be a first step toward
getting along.
