Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column that provides a new framework for thinking about ethical dilemmas and philosophical questions. This unconventional column is based on value pluralism, the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but often conflict with each other. This question was submitted by a Vox reader and has been condensed and edited for clarity.
My parents and siblings are all deeply religious and live in the southern states. My wife and I both moved away from religion at the same time, so obviously that led to a change in values. Nowhere has this been more evident than on abortion in recent election cycles.
Almost all of my relatives chose to vote for Trump in this election, one of the main reasons being limited access to abortion. For my wife and I, fully aware of how many women are being harmed and even killed by these new regulations, we can’t help but think, “Well, I guess there have to be some exceptions. ” and vote for the person who doesn’t think so without any hesitation. It feels like the only way to get them to care is if someone close to them becomes a victim of these laws.
I’m planning on going home to see them around Christmas, but we’re still struggling to get over this. How can we treat them as if all is well, knowing that their values are the exact opposite of ours? Are they perfectly fine with dramatically increasing human suffering in order to check a religious box? I love my family, but they have never confronted us with their beliefs: “You’re going to hell!” In a certain way, I still struggle to deal with this issue and try to lump ethical issues into a box called “politics” and act as if we can never talk about it. I am. Do you have any advice?
At this moment, your family is morally incomprehensible to you. What I’m saying is that it’s hard to understand how they could have voted like that. As you say, it’s “mind-boggling”. But my point is, this is mind-boggling in part because you’re making two core assumptions.
The first premise is that their values are the exact opposite of ours. Second, they are perfectly fine with the dramatic increase in human suffering. These beliefs are putting you in a dilemma. I don’t know how to talk to my relatives about my choice to vote for Trump. However, I also feel that it is wrong to just remain silent.
Have a question you’d like answered in the next “Mileage may vary” column?
Therefore, consider the following: Just as your tongue has taste buds, your heart also has moral taste buds. According to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who co-developed the Fundamentals of Morality Theory. His research suggests that people in different political camps prioritize different moral values. Liberals are people whose “moral taste” makes them particularly sensitive to the values of consideration and fairness. Conservatives are also people who are sensitive to the values of loyalty, authority, and holiness.
This does not mean that some of these values are “wrong” and some are “right.” They are not actually “opposite” of each other. It’s just different. And each captures important aspects of human life.
Therefore, when we try to communicate with people across the political aisle, we often assume that they are morally bankrupt, that they are perfectly fine with a dramatic increase in human suffering. It’s best not to assume. Perhaps they act on moral values just like we do, but the values that are salient to them are not the values that are most salient to us.
Haidt’s work suggests that we should enter these conversations with genuine curiosity: what are the moral values behind opposing political views? — and the recognition that other people’s values also have value. You may not be a conservative, but I’m guessing you still feel there is value in things like loyalty and holiness. People are much more receptive when they feel you’re trying to find common moral ground than when you’re just trying to win an argument, so it’s helpful to mention that.
To be clear, being aligned with someone’s underlying values does not mean that you ultimately have to agree with their position on, say, abortion. Nor does it mean falling into moral relativism, believing that all positions are equally valuable. One can recognize the legitimacy of underlying moral values even when one disagrees with the particular way in which that value is expressed in the world.
Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor provides a language for thinking about this. In his book The Malaise of Modernity, he writes that we must “identify and articulate the higher ideals that lie behind more or less depraved practices, and view these practices from the perspective that motivates them as such.” We need to engage in the recovery process of criticizing.” Ideal. In other words, rather than rejecting this culture completely or endorsing it as it is, we are trying to make it clearer what the ethics embraced by our participants actually are. We should strive to improve our practice. ”
Taylor agrees with trying to convince others of your point of view. But he says you need to be clear about the level of your persuasion. It’s a mistake to attack the underlying value because there’s actually nothing wrong with it. Instead, we need to show what happens when we respect that value properly and fully.
You mentioned that abortion is a particular issue in families, so let’s take that as an example. As a liberal, you are in favor of abortion rights primarily because you believe in human autonomy over your own body, and because you believe in human autonomy over your own body, and you do not want harm, physical or otherwise, to the pregnant person. I think it’s because I want to prevent this. psychological (care, or prevention of harm, is one of Haidt’s typical liberal “tastes”); That makes so much sense!
At the same time, you may see how others focus on other values, such as the sanctity of life. (Sacredness, the idea that something is so sacred that we want to protect it, is one of Haidt’s typical conservative “tastes.” But it’s not limited to that camp. I’m thinking of the “Black Lives Matter” signs I’ve seen at Black Lives Matter protests. Maybe the sanctity of life is not your top value, or maybe you disagree with a relative about the sanctity of life. It really begins. But it doesn’t matter, it’s about being in tune with your underlying values. This is relatively easy to relate to. Because life is truly precious. — makes other positions morally legible.
Recognizing that doesn’t mean the discussion is over. This is where the real discussion, the discussion we should have, actually begins. Because if your family believes that the unborn child is a life and therefore deserves moral consideration, it does not necessarily represent a sacred life and definitely deserves moral weight. This is because you have to compare it with the claims of pregnant women who do.
The advantage of structuring the conversation this way is that we are no longer stuck in one side, i.e. you’re right or I’m right, but suddenly find ourselves in both/and positions. is. We want to prevent harm and protect lives. Beyond the fight over values, we can now discuss the real question that should be troubling us: what happens when we properly consider both values.
For example, whether you carry a pregnancy to term not because you are 100 percent sure that the fetus does not deserve moral consideration, but because you are 100 percent sure that you do not deserve moral consideration. You could also argue that you should be free to choose. I want to prevent harm to myself. And you’re in the best position to know how childbirth will affect you. In other words, I can acknowledge the possibility that there is something worth weighing in their views, but it’s a certainty on the other side of the scale, that is, their own values care about them. We can point out that it is outweighed by certainty. If they vote for politicians who are vehemently opposed to abortion, they are not acting in accordance with their own values.
Taylor’s warning: Don’t expect to successfully change your relative’s mind. It is naive to think that people are swayed only by arguments. He writes that human life is fundamentally “dialogic.” This means that we form our identities not only through rational thought, but also through our conversations and relationships with others.
That means you need to consider the situation your relative is in. Because they belong to a religious community in a southern state, the majority of their social circles may be opposed to abortion rights. If you don’t have access to a community that makes you believe that your pro-abortion rights position is admirable, you may feel psychologically threatened to take that position. Your relatives, like the rest of us, live in a particular technological environment. News media and social media algorithms push some content and suppress others. If you’re flooded with conservative content, it can be very difficult to make inroads.
it’s okay. It’s not your job to successfully change their views on abortion. Ultimately, they do not have much control over it, given that their views are conditioned not only by values and logical arguments, but also by the social and technological webs in which they are embedded. Your job is to express your loving, complete self.
Being fully yourself means more than just keeping your mouth shut. However, when you feel like spouting out harsh or critical words, you may run your tongue over your mouth to remind yourself. I have moral taste, and so do they. If you feel you are situated in that truth and want to discuss voting with your relatives from there, then do so. But it’s very likely that, like many of us living in this highly polarized country, you need to practice the first part more. If so, put it into practice this holiday season and enjoy loving time with your family.
Bonus: What I’m Reading
I read 1 article last month
Here at Vox, we’re unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you: democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the growing threat of polarization across our country.
Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that lets you stay informed and help shape your world. Becoming a Vox member directly strengthens our ability to provide in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.
We count on readers like you. Please join us.
Swati Sharma
vox editor in chief
