Wisdom Leads to Good Decisions and Good Living

HS #7  2016.2.2

A few years ago, a friend with obviously strong opinions concerning home décor was showing me around Grand Haven.  Passing a particular white brick house, she disclosed that it had been her former home. Originally a traditional red brick, she had decided to have it painted white. So she had hired a painter and showed him the shade that she had chosen.

However, the painter objected. He explained that after the paint dried on the brick, it would look different than she was imagining, so she really wanted a different shade. She was equally adamant that she knew what she wanted, and instructed him to use her choice.

With neither able to convince the other, the painter offered a compromise. He would use her choice of color, but if she didn’t like it, he’d be willing to repaint at no charge. She, of course, agreed to his generous offer.  So he painted the house and after letting it fully dry, he called her outside. “Now, is THAT what you wanted?”  “Yes – perfect - that is exactly what I wanted!”   “Great! - glad you like it - I painted it my color.”

That’s one of my favorite true stories – made all the better because the victim was telling it on herself.  But for the moment, I’d like to focus on the painter. He was a wise man.

Wisdom, it seems, includes two ingredients possessed by the painter:  cleverness and a deep understanding of human nature.  He had the cleverness to conceive a plan that he was confident would provide the best result, while still providing an “out” just in case.  But why did he disclose the truth?  The painter is endearing because he wasn’t going to leave without the satisfaction of letting his obstinate customer know that he had been right.  Cocky? Of course.   But also wise. He knew himself and the equally strong-willed homeowner well enough to realize that there would be no hard feelings, and that they would both enjoy telling the story.

These attributes of wisdom are found in others as well. I have heard (and a quick internet research supports) that two main Biblical characters are described as having wisdom.  Those familiar with Biblical literature likely know one of them to be Solomon – the third king of Israel who lived about 1000 BC during its glory days. The second lived 500 years later, after Israel had been defeated and led into captivity by the Babylonians.  The young captive Daniel and his friends were also described as possessing wisdom.

Notice that, like the painter, both of these men solved dilemmas with the combination of cleverness and understanding of human nature.

Solomon’s wisdom was marvelously revealed when he adjudicated a celebrated case involving two prostitutes who lived together.  When one of their newborn infants died, each claimed to be the mother of the survivor. Without neighbors or relatives who recognized the infant, one can imagine lower court judges trying unsuccessfully to ferret out the truth by calling witnesses who likely had paid little attention to the two women. Solomon’s cleverness of thought and deep understanding of human nature revealed the truth.  When he bluffed by ordering the surviving baby to be cut in two in order to be fair to both women, the true mother revealed herself by entreating that the child live – even if given to the other. Solomon’s command, “Give the child to it mother” gives me goose bumps. It was every bit as unexpected, yet – seen in retrospect – every bit as obvious as the painter’s solution.  What a story!

Daniel showed similar cleverness.  When he and his friends were instructed by the King to eat rich food for the sake of their health, Daniel was in a dilemma. He did not want to defile himself with the rich diet, but he fully appreciated the plight of his supervisor who would be killed if Daniel and his friends lost their youthful luster. So Daniel suggested a controlled experiment of ten days on vegetables for them.  After proving the truth of Michael Pollan’s counsel, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Daniel and his friends were allowed to keep to their convictions.

So whether from one of these, or from my own mother who when asked by her competitive teenage son and daughter which of them had the better tan, replied, “Beth’s is more golden and even, and Tim’s is more dark and rugged,” we see that wisdom leads to good decisions and good living.

Bringing out the best in humanity

HS 2016.1.5

One of my favorite Far Side cartoons shows a seagull television reporter broadcasting the death of a fellow seagull lying in the foreground. In the background are the flaming remains of a jet crash – the result of the ill-fated seagull having gotten caught in one of its engines.

The humor of course comes because it reminds us that turnabout is fair play:  human deaths are rather insignificant to seagulls.

This cartoon also illustrates an important principle about our circles of concern. Speaking personally, I am most concerned about myself. Merely losing a glove can ruin my morning.  Next come family, close relatives and good friends. I’m not overly bothered if one loses a glove, but if sick, I want to know. Then come casual friends, co-workers, and neighbors, followed by those in my immediate community.  Continuing from there, fellow Americans generate more concern than those in other countries.  Finally, having a European ancestry, I am more interested in what is happening in Europe than in other parts of the world. 

Let me be clear that I’m not suggesting that this is either right or wrong. I’m just claiming that this is the way I seem to think, and I suspect that others are similar. Each person stands in the center of ever-increasing concentric circles of concern. The more closely related others are to us – genetically, geographically, occupationally, and otherwise, the more concern we show. Tragedies overseas certainly do not have the news value of ones nearby. 

Indeed, if we were not built that way, we would not live long.  A newborn baby knows only of its own needs and lets everyone within earshot know of them.  Given this natural tendency, children must be intentionally taught to develop concern for others.

These circles of concern are found in non-human animals as well.  Social animals such as prairie dogs, lions and honey bees will help their relatives, often in direct proportion to how genetically related they are.  For example, a prairie dog that sees a hawk will warn the others by barking, even though doing so draws attention to itself.  Similarly, it may be that our tendency to care for those closely related to us is genetically hardwired in us.

But humans also have a moral consciousness that other animals do not seem to have. This enables us to rise above our mere animal nature and broaden our circle of care to include more people.  Essentially, how do we answer, “Who is my neighbor?”  As I write this, ABC News is broadcasting the story of a young black man who is donating his kidney to a middle-aged white man he does not know in another part of the country.  Why?  What compels some of us to make such sacrifices?

Religion may be one factor.  Religion is certainly a mixed bag because it tends to group and partition people and that plays into our predisposition to focus only on those close to us.  However, in a recent conversation with a Chinese student, I asked what differences she found between her country and the U.S.  She said that people were pretty similar overall, but she was surprised by some she had met in West Michigan who voluntarily gave up their good lives here to live in tough conditions around the world ministering to others.  Such people often come from churches.

 Good leaders and role models can also serve to bring out the best in us.  One important role of our political leaders is to challenge us to be better people.  FDR reminded us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Kennedy challenged us to “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”  More recently GHW Bush spoke of a“Thousand Points of Light.”  His son spoke of “compassionate conservatism” while our current president encouraged us not to be divided as blue states and red states, but to work together.

Likely, the success of these leaders in bringing out our best fell far short of their aspirations.  But their intention to help us look beyond ourselves was a reflection of their own good character. They were all following the example and advice of Abraham Lincoln who implored a divided county to live by the “better angels of our nature”.

Friends, having an expansive view of “neighbor” does not come naturally or easily.  Therefore, looking to the future, I hope for leaders who will encourage us to live by the better angels of our nature.

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.

Learning from paradoxes

HS  #4   2015.11.3

Learning from paradoxes

Every child should spend some time flying kites. Kites illustrate a valuable paradox about life.  Anyone who has flown one knows that it exerts a constant pull upward. More to the point, to keep the kite aloft, the operator needs to keep pulling it down. How interesting. The kite is trying – trying – trying to move up, yet it is the very act of holding it down that keeps it up. Let it do what it wants - release the string allowing it soar to the heavens, and the kite will flutter listlessly to the ground. That which seemingly is constraining it, is in fact the very thing that is keeping it aloft. Application: Constraints provide freedom. Paradox.

 Jesus’s teaching was full of paradoxes. Just one example: If a man compels you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it two. This is usually understood by commentators as an admonition to seek the peace by being gracious to one’s enemy -  even at personal cost.  I think they miss the point.  

Roman authorities realized that soldiers in conquered territory needed the help of the subjugated, so they allowed soldiers to require locals to carry their packs for one mile. This was obviously a  “stick in the eye” to the proud vanquished people. How humiliating to be powerless in one’s own country. 

Jesus, with a deep understanding of human nature, was suggesting a way for these dominated people to keep their dignity. Don’t carry the soldier’s pack out of coercion.  The soldier asks for the pack back after a mile. No way!  You’re going to carry it two miles because that is what YOU have chosen to do. YOU are in control of the situation, not the soldier.  Thus by carrying the load two miles rather than one, the Jew bids the soldier goodbye with his dignity intact.   

Fast forward: Those who have seen the classic movie, “Cool Hand Luke” may remember the scene where Paul Newman’s character challenged his fellow inmates to shovel dirt back into the trench being dug, not grudgingly from fear of the whip, but so fast that they might catch up with the back hoe.  In doing so, he transformed them from inmates to free men in a competition.  Doing more than is asked for seems contrary to one’s self interest, but in fact it is not. Paradox.

Another?  Consider the three unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Why not “Life, liberty and happiness? The founders must have realized that even with full life and liberty, the ultimate goal of happiness is not guaranteed.  One doesn’t have the right to happiness, only the right to pursue it.  Why? Because happiness is elusive.  The very act of pursuing happiness, just like the kite, can lead to a fluttering, listless life.  Instead it is those who get involved in a cause that draws one’s focus away from themselves who, often only in retrospect, realize they are happy and fulfilled.  Happiness then stays elusive when it is sought, but often comes as a wonderful byproduct when ignored.  Paradox.  

Yet another? Jonathan Livingston Seagull was the hip novelette of the ‘70’s.  An abiding truth of that little story is that the seagull who lived not to eat, but to perfect the art of flying was, ironically, the only seagull who had a constant supply of fresh tasty fish (by diving into deep water) while the others scrounged for scraps of decayed flesh on the beach.  Once again, the route to the best living is different from what one would expect.

Recall that a paradox is only an apparent contradiction, not a real one.  The existence of paradoxes then reveals that we don’t know ourselves – or reality – all that well.  We are all amateurs at life. I’ve played racquetball for over 30 years, but still consider myself an amateur because my best shots are accidental.   Similarly, I am still an amateur in living because, well into my 6^th decade, often the best things to happen to me are those I would not have chosen because they seem contrary to my best interest.  I am still surprised by life’s apparent contradictions.

Perhaps that is why the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard noted that life must be lived looking forward, but can only be understood looking backwards.  We live our lives amidst paradoxes, but we seldom notice them.  A richer life awaits as we do.

************************************