In life, there are times when both sides of a debate are right. Understanding both sides of an issue require a certain open-mindedness, a relinquishing of the "us vs. them" mentality that our minds are programmed to choose from. If one side sees an issue the same way we do, we praise them for that, while the other side, in what we determine to be irresponsible or immoral behavior, gets demonized. What we don't often realize is that the other side rationalizes their morality on a subject just as much as we do; certainly, they are not intending to be evil as much as we think. What's more disturbing is that they possibly see us as being morally corrupt the same way we see them.
None of this is truer than in the world of politics, where people on opposite sides of the spectrum constantly condemn each other for their seemingly immoral opinions. Abortion for example has equally valid arguments on both sides: one values the liberty of abused women, or a difficult family situation, while the other values an unborn life and considers it murder when put in practice. Neither side wins in my mind, because they both make morally sound points. Gun control is another touchy subject. One side values the protection of our citizens by getting rid of guns, while the other values individual liberty to own them as protection against criminals or the government. Advocates of either side on both issues usually fail to see that the other side is trying to protect citizens and their rights as well.
Mass shootings have recently gotten out of control, the same way abortion did in the 70s. Alternate solutions to both should be practiced, lest we become desensitized to horrible things like people getting shot at; and aborted fetuses, which unfortunately has already happened. Normalizing a crime ominously makes it more tolerable- we've seen it already since abortion became legal. And if you'd deny that a fetus is even a being, it would be a tall order for you to explain yourself. But this doesn't necessarily mean we have to end abortion or take guns away. Higher regulation might be the calling card- a common ground where both sides can feel heard. Such negotiations are what it takes resolve complicated issues like these. Finding common ground is easier said than done, with passions flaring that block our flexibility.
Maybe the answer is to stop electing partisan leaders and elect non-partisan ones instead. If we could all let go of the us/them mentality and embrace something like a unification party, I think some mutual progress could actually be made. But this fantasy is too unrealistic to work. I'm afraid that divisions in our society are too strong for us to abandon our allegiances so easily. All that leaves is more negotiating, which usually ends with a stalemate in our political climate.
One more thing I want to add; our moral relativism stems from an age-old debate in philosophy called deontology vs. consequentialism. Deontology is an intuitive response to moral dilemmas, while consequentialism is a rational one. For example, if given the opportunity, would you decide to kill one person to save five? Would you suffocate a crying baby to save a group of people hiding from Nazis? Deontologists would say no to both, by the simple feeling that both actions are wrong. Consequentialists would say yes, on the premise that doing them would amount to the greatest possible happiness for everyone involved. About 30% of people are deontologists and 30% consequentialists, with 40% falling under a gray area that uses both to influence their moral decisions. Interestingly, both political parties utilize each in the examples above: the left is deontological in intuitively standing for gun control, just as the right is against abortion- saving lives being the common link between them. Similarly, consequentialism is used by the left in rationalizing abortion, just as the right does with gun control. Perhaps the fact that both sides use the same moral algorithms to define their views should help us realize that the other side isn't always out to get us, and they aren't narrow-minded or ignorant. Like us, they feel strongly about believing in the right thing, even if the moral reasoning behind it contradicts something else they believe in.
No comments:
Post a Comment