Right now, your loved one’s family members will no longer be morally accountable to you. You’re implying that you struggle to comprehend their thought process in casting votes in a particular manner. That’s mind-boggling, indeed! It is puzzling, in part, because your reasoning hinges on two fundamental presumptions.
The primary assumption is that “our values are starkly at odds with theirs.” The second assumes that “they’re fervently optimistic despite the escalating struggles of humanity.” These assumptions leave you facing a dilemma: You’re torn between finding an easy way to discuss their intention to vote for Trump with your family, and feeling it’s improper to remain silent on the matter.
As our minds possess moral receptors, our thoughts have an innate sense of ethics. According to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, co-developer of Researchers have found that individuals across various political spectrums place distinct ethical priorities. Individuals who identify as liberals often possess an inherent sensitivity to values that emphasize care and equity. Conservatives tend to be particularly sensitive to the values of loyalty, authority, and tradition.
These values aren’t polar extremes; they’re more nuanced. A minority may be flawed, while others meet expectations. The distinction isn’t as stark as contradictory forces. They’re simply completely different. Each of these components captures a vital aspect of human existence.
When engaging with individuals across the political spectrum, it’s crucial to avoid assuming they’re morally bankrupt or naively idealistic – perhaps they’re operating on a different set of ethical values, just as we are, although these values may not align with our own priorities.
We should engage in these conversations with genuine intellectual humility, seeking to understand the moral foundations driving the opposing views. Recognizing that others’ values also possess inherent value – While you may reject traditional values, the concept of loyalty still resonates with you, imbuing it with a sense of importance and reverence. When engaging with others, it’s essential to establish common ground, as people become more open-minded when they perceive your approach is rooted in a shared moral foundation rather than solely focused on prevailing in a debate.
While striving to understand the fundamental principles guiding someone else’s perspective does not necessarily require you to concur with every specific stance, such as that on abortion. While it’s true that cultural values and norms vary greatly, nor does this perspective necessarily slide into the assumption that each place is equally worthy? While acknowledging the inherent moral value, you may disagree with the manner in which an individual chooses to manifest that value within their daily life.
The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor offers some valuable insights regarding this matter. He argues in his eBook that we must “conduct a retrieval,” identifying and articulating the underlying preferred values behind devalued practices, and then critique those practices from the perspective of their own inherent motivators. Instead of either rejecting or accepting the tradition in its current form, we should strive to revitalize it by rendering its underlying ethos more comprehensible to those who participate.
Taylor advocates for actively shaping opinions and perspectives in line with her own beliefs. Although he says you want to be very clear about what stage your persuasion is currently working on? It’s a misconception to undermine the inherent value, since there is ultimately no inherent flaw in doing so. You should strive to authentically embody the essence of that principle in a manner that is both sincere and thorough?
Since this conversation is just between us, I’d like to explore some hypothetical scenarios around abortion. As a self-identified liberal, I presume you support abortion rights primarily because you value an individual’s sovereignty over their own body and seek to prevent harm – physical or emotional – to the pregnant person, aligning with your commitment to care and compassion, core tenets of Haidt’s traditional liberal worldview. The clarity and simplicity of your statement are impressive.
While considering a shared value, perhaps someone else might equally prioritize the reverence for human life? Sanctity, a concept that imbues certain things with an aura of inviolability, is a core “style bud” for conservatives in the tradition of Jon Haidt. While often associated with the religious right, sanctity’s appeal transcends ideological boundaries. As I reflected on a Black Lives Matter protest placard that read “Black lives are sacred,” I began to ponder whether it’s truly accurate to elevate the sanctity of life as our paramount value. Perhaps, in fact, one shouldn’t prioritize it above all else; nor might individuals concur with their family members regarding when life actually commences. Regardless, it is essential to cultivate an awareness of the inherent value in all aspects of existence – a notion that is remarkably straightforward, as life itself is inherently precious. Inverts the moral framework of a given location, rendering its opposing values transparent.
The fact that we have reached a point of recognition does not necessarily mean that the debate has been resolved. The debate’s core conundrum emerges precisely here. Given that loved ones may view a fetus as a life deserving ethical consideration, they must balance this against the rights and needs of the pregnant individual, a sacred life with inherent ethical value.
By reframing the dialogue in this way, we’re no longer stuck in an either-or scenario – it’s either you’re right or I’m right – but suddenly we’re in a both-and framework. We strive to put an end to harm, to protect and preserve human existence. Let’s move beyond the debate on values and focus on the crucial question that warrants our attention: How can we ensure that each value receives a fair hearing without appearing arbitrary or capricious in our decision-making process?
I ought not be forced to choose whether to delay pregnancy due to my absolute certainty that a fetus warrants zero moral consideration because it is born from me, rather than because I’m equally convinced that I, as an individual with inherent dignity and autonomy, deserve absolute ethical concern and wish to prevent harm to myself by having control over the timing of my reproductive choices. While acknowledging the significance of individual perspectives, it’s crucial to strike a balance between the weight given to personal views and the certainties that arise from considering alternative vantage points – a commitment driven by one’s core values. If voters choose candidates who fundamentally contradict their professed stance on abortion, their actions are incongruous with their espoused moral compass.
A cautionary note from Taylor: Don’t assume you’ll effortlessly sway your family’s opinions. While some may assume that people’s opinions can be influenced solely through logical reasoning, According to him, human existence is inherently “dialogical,” implying that our sense of self emerges through interactions and exchanges with others, rather than solely through introspection or logical contemplation.
Given that you’re considering your family’s situation? In a predominantly Christian community within a Southern state, the vast majority of their social network likely opposes abortion rights. If individuals without access to a network supporting pro-choice advocacy are forced to consider a pro-life site, it may psychologically undermine their sense of security and well-being. Your family, like everyone else, resides in a given technological environment. News outlets and online platforms employ complex algorithms to curate and prioritize certain content over others. When confronted with an overwhelming influx of conservative content, making a meaningful impact becomes an extremely challenging task.
That’s okay. Your role isn’t to effectively alter someone’s stance on abortion – it’s unrealistic to exert significant influence, as deeply held beliefs often stem from a complex interplay of values, reasoning, and societal influences shaped by the digital landscape. Be true to yourself, embracing every aspect of your identity with unapologetic authenticity.
When embracing authenticity, you let go of the need to carefully curate every word, allowing your true voice to shine. As the urge strikes to unleash biting criticism or sharp words, take a moment to mentally pause and recall that others’ taste buds can be just as refined; it’s essential to cultivate empathy and kindness in all interactions. As you genuinely sense yourself situated within that reality, you may choose to initiate a conversation with your family regarding their voting decisions, embarking on an open dialogue from that profound perspective. But for those who’re like many Americans in this deeply divided country, you may want to take a closer look at the first part. As you unwind and disconnect from the hustle and bustle of daily life, seize the opportunity to nurture cherished moments with family and friends.
