I actually kind of love this question. I’ve been playing with it for a bit. Who has the wherewithal to make that decision… What is moral? What is not? Who defines the principles of right and wrong behavior?
There are multiple relevant memes and chants that have long circulated. They go something like this…
We can agree to disagree on things like coffee, pineapple on pizza, etc. — but not on basic common decency or human rights. That’s not a difference of opinion; that’s a difference in morality.
Wow. That’s hard. And there’s some truth in that — right?
It’s exactly the foundation of the Israeli/Hamas conflict, for example. At the core of Hamas is their long-established charter which outlines their aims and identity. The covenant is often downplayed publicly, no doubt because of what it actually says. It says that destroying Israel is essential.
Sounds like that makes “agree to disagree” a little complicated. It feels as if one perspective is more in regard to morality.
So what do we do? How do we find a solution when it feels so complicated and difficult? This is about far more than Israel and Hamas.
Let me suggest a few simple angles, with absolutely zero intention of dismissing the difficulty…
First, I think we learn to listen — we seek to understand that which we don’t. It doesn’t hurt to sit down and listen to someone. We’ve all heard some contend that “I’m not going to validate them by being in the same room with them!” Ok. But how does a person grow in their opinion or perspective if no one ever engages with them in a respectful give-and-take, where ideas and angles are shared in a way people can actually hear them? We can’t bully another into thinking like us. In fact, this is precisely the reason I think it’s a poor idea for those considering skipping the Thanksgiving dinner this year because of a diverse table of opinion. Boundaries are one thing — and are prudent indeed — but avoidance and lack of listening change no one’s opinion.
And second, we refrain from thinking we are fully capable of discerning what’s moral. The question, friends, isn’t: who’s prudent enough? The question is: who’s omniscient? And since none of us that I’m aware of have actually walked on water on this planet, my sense is there exist holes in each of our thinking — places where our passion obstructs our wisdom, because we’ve prioritized one angle of an issue and can no longer see another. That’s where we declare it to be a difference of morality instead of opinion. See the convenience of that? If I make it about morality, I never ever have to listen to anyone else nor grow in my own opinion.
Here’s where groupthink gets in the way. One person posts a meme; another reposts it. One person claims an opinion; another repeats it. The challenge is we just blindly or emotionally follow the lead, when it’s rarely so black and white.
I couldn’t help but think of this a few weeks ago when traveling through Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. All these people were waiting for the tram to take us to the terminal. Many were seemingly in a rush.
The waiting area was crowded and people didn’t know where to go or what to think. But they assumed because all the people were looking in the same direction for the tram on the right side, that had to be what was true…
… until the tram showed up on the left. You had to be willing to look in a direction other than those all around you.
Sometimes, often times, groupthink gets in the way. It keeps us from listening to the different. It keeps us from sitting at diverse tables. It keeps us from discerning what’s moral… what’s good and right and true.
Still something I’m growing in… hopefully always… as I’ll never be one walking on water.
Respectfully…
AR