My family voted for Trump. How can I talk about politics without ruining the holidays?

Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column that gives you a new framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas and philosophical questions. This unconventional column is based on value pluralism – the idea that we each have multiple values ​​that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Here’s a Vox reader question, edited for brevity and clarity.

My parents and siblings are all very religious, living in a southern state. My wife and I have both moved away from our religion as well, so obviously there have been some changes in values ​​as a result. Nowhere has this been more evident than with abortion in this recent election cycle.

Almost all of my relatives decided to vote for Trump in this election, and limiting access to abortion was one of the main reasons. For my wife and I, it’s puzzling how they can be fully aware of how many women are being harmed and even killed by these new restrictions and just brush it off by saying, “Well, I think there should be some exceptions. ,” and then vote for people who don’t think so, without any tension. It almost seemed like the only way they could care was if someone close to them was a victim of one of these laws.

We’ll be home to see them at Christmas, and we’re still struggling with navigating the dynamic. How do we communicate with them as if everything is okay when knowing that their values ​​are the opposite of ours? Are they perfectly fine with dramatically increasing human suffering to check a religious box? I love my family, and they have never taken away their faith in us with a “you’re going to hell!” Way, but I’m still having trouble wrestling with it and trying to act like we can lump moral issues into a box called “politics” and never talk about it. Any suggestions?

dear tongue tied,

Right now, your family members are not morally legible to you. What I mean is that you have trouble understanding how they could possibly vote the way they did. It is “mind-boggling,” as you put it. But I’d like to suggest that it boggles the mind in part because you’re making two key assumptions.

The first assumption is that “their values ​​are the opposite of our values.” The second is “they are completely fine with dramatically increasing human suffering.” These assumptions leave you in a quandary: You don’t know how to talk to your relatives about their choice to vote for Trump — but holding your tongue also feels wrong.

So consider this: just as your tongue has taste buds, so your mind has moral taste buds. This is according to social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who co-developed Moral Foundations Theory. His research suggests that people in different political camps prioritize different moral values. Liberals are those whose “moral taste buds” are especially sensitive to the values ​​of care and fairness. Conservatives are those who are also sensitive to the values ​​of obedience, authority, and sanctity.

It is not that some of these values ​​are “wrong” and some are “correct”. They are not actually “geometrically opposed” to each other. They are just different. And each captures a dimension that matters in human life.

So, when we try to communicate with people across the political aisle, it’s best not to assume they’re morally bankrupt — or “completely fine with dramatically increasing human suffering.” Maybe they are acting on moral values, just like we are, but the values ​​that matter to them are not the most important to us.

Haidt’s research suggests that we should enter this conversation with genuine curiosity—what are the moral values ​​behind opposing political views? — and a recognition that others have value, too. You may not be a conservative, but I imagine you still feel that there is some value in obedience, speaking, or sanctity. It’s helpful to communicate this, because people are much more receptive when they understand that you’re trying to find shared moral ground than when you’re just trying to win an argument.

To be clear, agreeing with another person’s underlying values ​​does not mean you have to agree with their position on abortion. Nor does it mean that you are moving toward moral relativism, believing that every position is equally worthy. You recognize the validity of an underlying moral value even as you dispute the specific ways in which the person expresses that value in the world.

Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor provides some language for thinking about this. in his book The discomfort of modernityHe wrote that we must “undertake the work of restoration, [to] Identify and articulate the higher ideals behind more or less contemptible practices and then critique these practices from the perspective of their own motivating ideals. In other words, instead of dismissing this culture altogether, or endorsing it as it is, we should try to enhance its practice by making it more clear to its participants what morality actually entails to which they subscribe.”

Taylor advocates trying to convince others of your views. But he says you need to be very clear about what level your persuasion is working on. Attacking the underlying value is a mistake, because there is nothing wrong with it. Instead, you should try to show what it would look like to honor that standard properly and fully.

Since you mentioned that abortion is a particular sticking point in your family, let’s take this as an example. As a liberal on the spectrum, I’m guessing you favor abortion rights in large part because you believe in a person’s autonomy over her own body and you want to prevent harm to the pregnant person, whether physical or psychological (care, or harm prevention, Haidt’s classic liberal ” one of the “taste buds”. That makes a ton of money!

At the same time, maybe you can see how someone else can focus on other values, like the sanctity of life. (Sacredness, or the idea that something is so sacred that we want to protect it, is one of Haidt’s classic conservative “taste buds”. Note Although it is often invoked by the religious right, it is not exclusive to that camp. I’m thinking of a sign I saw at a Black Lives Matter protest: “Black lives are sacred.”) Maybe the sanctity of life isn’t your highest value, and you disagree with your relatives about when life really begins. But regardless: matching the intrinsic value – which is relatively easy to compare, because life is truly precious! – makes other positions morally legible.

Admitting this doesn’t mean the argument is over. This is where the real argument, which we should have, actually begins. Because if your family members believe that a fetus is a life and therefore worthy of moral concern, they still have to weigh against the claims of the pregnant person, who must represent a sacred life and whose needs must carry moral weight.

The beauty of framing the conversation this way is that we’re no longer stuck in either – either you’re right or I’m – but suddenly we’re both/and both. We want to prevent harm And We want to save lives. Having moved beyond the struggle over values, we can now discuss the real question that should occupy us: what would it look like to consider both values ​​appropriately?

For example, I might argue that I should be free to choose whether to carry the pregnancy to term, not because I am 100 percent sure that a fetus deserves zero moral concern, but because I am 100 percent sure that I am morally worthy. Anxiety, and I want to prevent harm to myself, and I am in the best position to know what the consequences of childbearing will be for me. In other words, I can grant the possibility that there is something to weigh in their view, but note that it is outweighed by the certainty on the other side of the scale—a certainty that their own values ​​are committed to their care. If they vote for politicians who are totally opposed to abortion, they are not living up to their stated values.

A word of caution from Taylor: Don’t expect to successfully change your relatives’ minds. It would be naive to assume that people are influenced only by arguments. He writes that human life is fundamentally “conversational” meaning that we construct our identity through our conversations and relationships with others, not just through rational thought.

This means we have to consider the context in which your relatives are. Because they are in a religious community in a southern state, the majority of their social circle may oppose abortion rights. If they don’t have access to a community that finds the pro-abortion-rights position plausible, it may feel psychologically threatening to hold that position. Your relatives, like the rest of us, are living in a certain technological climate. News media and social media algorithms push some of their content and suppress other content. If they are flooded with conservative content, it can be extremely difficult for you to make a dent.

ok It’s not your job to successfully change their views on abortion – you ultimately don’t have much control over it, given that their views are conditioned not only by values ​​or rational reasoning but also by the social and technological web in which they are embedded. Your job is to show up as your full, loving self.

Being your full self means you don’t just hold your tongue. But when you find yourself tempted to let out some harsh or judgmental words, you can run your tongue over the roof of your mouth as a way to remind yourself: You have moral taste buds — and so do they. If you feel you have established yourself in that fact and from that point, you want to open a discussion with your relatives about their vote, go for it. But it’s also highly possible that you, like many of us in this highly polarized country, could use more practice with the first part. If so, feel free to just exercise this holiday season — and enjoy some loving time with your family.

Bonus: What I’m Reading

• D Experimental philosopher Joshua Knobe has a short and sweet Blog post What actually succeeds in changing society. One approach is to try to change people’s beliefs or explanatory theories about something. Another is to try to change community norms. The latter takes longer, but Nob thinks it might be the only way to do it.

• Journalist Shayla Love is doing the kind of “recovery work” that I think Charles Taylor would want His recent Atlantic article About Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the wellness industry. “The history of well-being suggests that the best way to undermine Kennedy’s power is not to make a case against each of his beliefs,” he writes, “but to understand why the promise of well-being has such enduring appeal.” He argues that well-being fascinates us not because of its authenticity but because it fulfills some psychological need.

• What prompted me to write this column was the work of Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School —This interview will give you a good taste – who argues that America has a very strange way of thinking about rights. We recognize some of them, but the rights we recognize are considered inalienable and absolute. I think that prevents us from having “both/and” conversations where we talk about how we might weigh competing rights or values.

Source link