2. Proximity to a Problem

Proximity to a problem  –  I find myself having the same experience, which clarifies the problem I have with most dissensions. The problem becomes clearer with each instance, like a shoe gaining shine each time it is teased with a polisher’s fine cloth. Everyone seems to be triggered by things that they can potentially experience or have experienced. Reds are triggered the most by things that affect reds, and blues are triggered the most by things that affect blues, the same goes for yellows, and greens, and so forth. The facts argued for in any matter is inextricably linked to the lived experience or potential lived experience of either one of the two people on opposite ends of an issue, making the whole enterprise, when one takes a bird’s eye view, seemingly fruitless.

The intellectual conscience to detach oneself from their lived experience, or potential lived experience, so as to have a fair take on a subject even when it assaults the moral standing of one’s group or self, seems to be beyond the ability of most of us. Any issue thus, that recruits the experience of an individual as a red, as a green, as a blue, as a self, makes the positions of each individual biased and therefore, sadly predictable. Blue, consciously, or unconsciously, will be on the side of the argument that favors blue, in any and most issues. The same will be for red, and so on with green, yellow, and so forth. Observe this a number of times and it writes itself out into an equation, where one can confidently wear a blindfold so as not to have his judgement contaminated by his vision, and one can ascribe with good accuracy the identity of two interlocutors based on the positions they hold in an argument. If this is true, then truth is more elusive than we have supposed.  

Let us consider the case of someone who is against the death penalty, because they believe that no human, especially the state, holds the moral authority to deliberate on the fate of a human life. This belief, when applied generally to other people, holds. However, the moment someone close to the individual is brutally and gratuitously killed, then the belief cannot help but be poked from all sides by the individual’s own moral compass. The gain in proximity of the problem, is accompanied by a personalization of the problem, resulting in the often-unpleasant realization that one holds oneself to a different standard than they hold the general populace than previously believed. Keeping with this analogy, now let us suppose that the individual who does not believe in the death penalty accidentally finds himself on the wrong side of the law, where the death penalty is being deliberated on his behalf. Their original belief in the moral insufficiency of human beings to take life, will all the more be reinforced. This can be attributed to the gain in proximity of the problem. Almost never will you find a case where an individual will increasingly affirm a belief that hastens his/her own demise.

When one begins casting an eye on polarizing issues in society, this proximity problem, to those who have eyes for it, begins to poke out like braille underneath a blind man’s fingertips. Does it then come as a surprise that far more men than women favor routine paternity testing? Or that far more women than men favor reproductive rights? Of the people who are against stringent consent laws, can one not immediately guess the majority of them will be men? Or that the majority of the people opposing the teaching of evolution will be religious? And so forth. Spousal support, guess which group supports it the most? These examples, although crude, are made simple for a reason, they make the point obvious. However, it does not end with group identity, the most proximal a problem can get is beyond the group. It inevitably extends closer to the individual, directly impacting the self.  

Although relatively difficult to illustrate than the group, similar rules still apply. It is more difficult to kill yourself than another person. It is more difficult to kill another person close to you than it would be to kill a stranger. It would be more difficult to kill a stranger than it would be to kill an ape. It would be much easier to kill a fish than an ape. And so forth. The further from oneself the act of killing, the easier it becomes. This rule of thumb is maintained even in the realm of ideas. It is much more difficult to hold ideas that are harmful to the continuation of one’s ego. Simply, “no one is a villain in their own story”. The implication is that one will always be on one’s side. Discussions, whether they escalate into arguments or not, essentially become a matter of self-preservation. Even when concessions are made during an argument, they are made in small inconsequential bits. Rarely is the edifice of the worldview completely surrendered and admitted to being wrong in real time. This would be social suicide. No, the serious matters of concession have to be negotiated by the self in private, at a cost. Words from a friend gave me this epiphany, and their echo still reveberates in my mind to this day; “Who cares about nuances and contemplation in the midst of a war?”

I should have answered, the one who seeks to preserve his intellectual conscience. One who disciplines oneself enough to step away, one who becomes an apostate to one’s group or self-interests. But very soon, one learns, quite sadly, that such striving is not the main goal for the whole lot of us. Unfortunately, self-preservation is at stake, and it dictates our perspectives and limits our willingness to embrace nuances. A practice of listening to one’s intellectual conscience should be encouraged.

Until next time, Blogger’s Musings, adding value, one essay at a time. 

←1. Suffering from aggression and empathy

3. The dark forest→