Common Values with Different Priorities

                                                   HS #5   2015.12.1 

                                     Common Values with Different Priorities

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.