Consider the following sets of terms:
The good of the individual vs. the good of the collective. The good of the economy vs. the good of the environment. The good of unity vs. the good of diversity (the melting pot vs. multiculturalism). The good of tradition vs. the good of progress.
For each set of goods listed above, more of one often entails less of another. Thus people who are strongly concerned with one good often are at odds with those strongly concerned with the other. As an example, people who are strongly concerned with the rights of the individual are often at odds with those who are concerned with the good of the community. One side sees an injustice in taxing relatively wealthy individuals to fund programs that help the less well off. While the other side sees injustice in some having so much while others have little. Numerous books and articles have been written in support of each position.
Or, as another example, I know many people who are very concerned with the environment, but who also value their fine houses and cars – whose consumptive habits have a definite impact on the environment. On the other hand, I know a person who would vote economy over environment, but has a goal of visiting all of the National Parks. (The establishment of National Parks has usually been a heated battleground between the adherents of economy and the adherents of the environment.)
Listed as I have done here, I think most people would agree that each side of the terms represents a good, but many people have a preference, sometimes a quite strong one, for one side or the other. In general, the first set of terms are favored by political conservatives and the second by political liberals, though the details are more nuanced than that.
I think that most people would agree that the goal of good government is to maximize the good. If so, a good government will reach a compromise position that allows such a maximization to take place. That is what democracy does when it is functioning well. Positions are hashed out and compromises are reached. About thirty years ago or so, in the United States where I live, “compromise” became a nasty word. Politicians that compromised, rather than being seen as doing what a representative of a democracy should do, were seen as weak or even as traitors.
I’m neither a historian nor a political analyst, so I’m not sure how accurate my thoughts on this are, but it seems to me that this condemnation of compromise was the beginning of the polarization that is now such a predominant feature of the political landscape.
But politics is not the topic I want to pursue here. What I do want to pursue is how we can better understand our fellow humans in the divisive, polarized social world we now inhabit.
Either/Or vs. Both/And
If both sides as I have listed them above represent a good, then why do we tend to choose one side over another? Why don’t we seek to maximize the good of each? I suspect it is because choosing either this side or that side is easier than trying to find the good of both. Both/and thinking is like walking a tight rope – the opposing variables pull at us from each side. Either/or thinking provides something solid on which to take our stand even if that solidity may be based on an illusion.
The variables that cause a person to believe one thing rather than another are a complex mixture of heredity, enculturation and personal experience. Once people establish a belief, however, they have a tendency to find ways to reinforce that belief. It is extremely hard to get a person to change their basic beliefs.
From this I just want to make a few points. One is that each of us is such a person; we have our various beliefs and we probably hold them tightly. I would suggest that we might try to understand what goods might be contrary to our tightly held beliefs. We usually don’t have much trouble doing this with other people’s beliefs, but it is a lot harder with our own.
The second point is, if we judge other people’s beliefs, we should do so with a consideration of the good that is behind their beliefs, rather than just judging that their belief is mistaken or even evil.
Finally, I would suggest that we should be somewhat skeptical about our beliefs. I have seen a bumper sticker that reads “Don’t believe everything you think.” I consider that sound advice. The Greek philosopher Pyrrho of Elis, promoted a philosophy of suspending judgment on all non-evident beliefs (beliefs that couldn’t be established as facts). He saw that if we really take everything into consideration the reasons for believing one side or the other are often equal.
Of course, there is another point of view that says that we should have strong convictions and act on them. This too has its merits. But such convictions often carry more than a tinge of egotism. From a spiritual point of view, getting beyond egotism is usually a good thing. (Since spirituality is at the center of my life, you can see which view I am biased towards here.)
In the end, there is little that any of us can do to heal the rifts and polarizations that are so much a part of our social landscape. But we can try to understand our fellow humans and at least try to bridge these rifts in our little piece of the world.
__________
Learn about Membership in the Spiritual Naturalist Society
The Spiritual Naturalist Society works to spread awareness of spiritual naturalism as a way of life, develop its thought and practice, and help bring together like-minded practitioners in fellowship.
SNS strives to include diverse voices within the spectrum of naturalistic spirituality. Authors will vary in their opinions, terms, and outlook. The views of no single author therefore necessarily reflect those of all Spiritual Naturalists or of SNS.
___________
Thanks for this moderate article. We all need to hear this. Much appreciated.