Why Bother ?

Guest Post from Mustang.

Morality can only be defined within a single culture; never across two cultures.  An example of this is that we can study American Indian history and culture, but we can never compare their values with those of white persons.  We can form friendships with black people, but we cannot compare the moral compass of white people to that of blacks.  These groups never have been, are not now, and never will be culturally (morally) similar.

Human psychology causes us to reaffirm the integrity of our particular worldview.  We are always in search of information that confirms what we already believe, and we easily dismiss propositions that are hostile to our own core beliefs.  We become polarized and tend to listen less than we do talk, eager to convince others of the high moral value of our own point of view.  This leads us to an impasse when debating or conversing with others, who have their own moral compass.

Psychologists tell us that if we ever hoped to win an argument with someone with an opposing political position, our only chance of doing that is to frame our argument around what they claim to be their set of values.  It all has to do with the language one uses in their argument.  If one wants to sway an opponent, then one has to use language that reflects, in some way, what they believe to be true.  What we believe to be true is rooted in our moral foundations.

What influences our worldview is our moral foundation.  Progressives respond to such terms as equality, fairness, protecting the vulnerable, and humanity (globalism).  Conservatives respond well to such things as loyalty, purity, respect for authority, God, and Country.  This is why conservatives respond well to such phrases as, “Take our country back,” which causes progressives to retch.  But  the experts claim that moral foundations do not translate from one tribe to another.  You can’t win an argument with a German by speaking French.  You can’t win an argument with a progressive using words that reflect conservative values.

Key to having a debate with a friend, if you want to keep them as a friend, is to listen to what they are saying.  The manipulators among us refer to “listening” as “deep canvassing.”  In my view, this is a bit dishonest, not to mention disrespectful.  If you have a friend, if you respect that person, then you ought to be willing to listen carefully to what he or she is saying, without scoring a “slam dunk” with your own (contrasting) point of view.  Maybe there are occasions when a response isn’t even necessary.

But here’s the thing: if it is true that morality can only be defined within a single culture, and never between two cultures, should we begin to consider that progressive-minded persons are culturally and irretrievably removed from ourselves?  Think of this as two tribes, each with its own set of values (few to none of which are shared).  Conservatives view liberal values as “immoral,” and “Un-American,” but that only makes sense from the conservative perspective.  Likewise, progressives view their values as moral.  Hence, any conversation with a liberal is much like shoveling shit against the tide —which leads to the next question: why bother?

With this in mind, why would any conservative invite a liberal to Thanksgiving dinner, where the conversation always ends up centered on politics or politicians?  I’m sure there are hungry conservatives out there who could use a good meal.