Philosophy and ethics

Humans are obligate social creatures. We cannot survive alone as individuals. We only survive, both individually and as a species, to the extent that we create and maintain functioning collaborative social communities. For the purposes of this discussion, I will refer to these social entities collectively as societies.

A friend asked me why I had bothered to engage at length on social media with a self-identified ‘vaccine skeptic’ who had posted his vigorous opposition to any vaccine mandates, supporting his position with demonstrably incorrect information and references to poorly done (and even retracted) studies. My friend felt that my efforts were destined to fail and therefore pointless. When I asked what he meant by failure, he said “You’ll never convince someone like that they are wrong.”

I often see or participate in conversations where two or more morally decent individuals,  acting in good faith,  make different decisions or hold different opinions when faced with moral/ethical choices. In his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religions, Jonathan Haidt offers a useful framework for understanding this. Cogitive psychologists have names this Moral Foundations Theory.

Haidt and colleagues posit that:

Each of us finds our own personal truth about what the world is like and how it works. All of us then tend to confuse our experience of reality with reality itself. (Sometimes referenced as the map versus the territory.) The narratives we create about our world and then operate from are good enough to have allowed our species to survive, but we all believe things that are comfortable and useful but not true. Extreme versions of this are the outlandish conspiracy theories: flat earth, 9/11 conspiracy, Covid vaccie makes peole magnetic.

Here is my comment (edited for clarity and to avoid identifying individuals) on a social media platform in response to a post attacking a candidate who supports every woman's right to reproductive freedom. I don't often participate in social media arguments on topics like this as I find it rarely useful. However, this particular post was so replete with inaccuracies, and written with language designed to generate outrage rather than share information or offer a perspective, that I felt obliged to speak up.

I recently received a newsletter from a Maine elected official posing this question: “What keeps you up at night?”  I understood the question to be asking what Maine issues are most important to me, but knew immediately that what keeps me up at night are not local issues but the over-arching state of United States politics and the alarming possibility that our pluralistic democracy in the US will  be replaced by some form of authoritarian or fascist theocracy.

After I posted a comment in an online conversation I was told by someone I know well in real life: “That doesn’t sound like the Peter Elias I’ve worked and played with over the years.”  My response was the simple observation that most of us automatically use different ‘voices’ in different settings: we don’t use the same vocabulary or phrasing when addressing a work colleague, a grandparent, a state trooper, or a skiing buddy. Code switching is a current term for this.