Nothing can be accomplished by arguing for moral imperatives from a premise that the other side does not agree with. People spend so much time pushing for what we need to change in a society, and what a moral future looks like; only to become increasingly frustrated that the other side can’t agree on any of these plans. People feel that their solutions are obvious, and that anyone with common sense would have to agree. But these solutions are only obvious if you assume all of premises that they came from. And in an increasingly divided world, that is not an assumption that should ever be made.
Many times, I find myself in conversations where someone asks me a yes-or-no question on a moral matter, but I find myself unable to speak, because either answer first assumes things that I don’t agree with. For example, trying to identify whether men or women have been historically more oppressed and which side needs special treatment to achieve equality first assumes that men and women should be viewed as two opposed entities, something that I don’t agree with.
The inability to speak due to drastically different premises is a concerning phenomenon. In such cases it is better to take the disagreement down to a deeper level, to try and find an even more fundamental premise that is agreed on, and then work forward from there. But what happens when we cannot find that fundamental shared premise? We will lose all ability to reason with one another. And where reason fails, people fall back on force.
Many feuds in our society today are a lost cause no matter which side of the debate you are on, because both positions are built on a false surface-level paradigm. To find true solutions we must first go deeper, identify the faulty paradigm, and dismiss it entirely.
For example, many of the most common disagreements in marriage, such as who gets their way between high- and low- sexual desire partners, the proper management of finances, and the conditions that justify getting divorced, are typically predicated on the misconception that even after the marriage union has occurred the individual is the supreme entity whose interests must be secured above all others.
People get married today, still believing that their individual happiness is what should be protected first, that their own interests must be sought most, and that their own preferences should drive their decisions. Then man and wife argue about how their individual egos are being bruised, how their individual desires aren’t being met, how the marriage isn’t justifying itself to them on an individual level. Whoever gets their way in such arguments, the answer is wrong, because this is not the paradigm that Jesus affirmed when he was tested by the Pharisees.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -Matthew 19:4-6
Our Lord’s words shows that the correct view is that the man and the woman are “no more twain, but one.” They are supposed to subjugate the individual to the marriage, and protect that union’s happiness, seek its interests, and let its preferences drive their decisions.
So long as one holds onto the individual-supreme view, then any position they hold in every disagreement is wrong, and even the opposite positions are wrong, too. There are, therefore, no good options left, at least not until that person goes deeper inside and corrects their core paradigm.
I have noticed two different types of conversation that I have had with friends and loved ones who hold different perspectives and principles from my own. One type has been far more fruitful than the other. Let’s take a look at each.
Shared Foundation)
In some cases the conversation has seen us first speaking from our shared convictions, reinforcing the points that we agree on, and then from that shared foundation explaining the reasoning that has led us to the perspectives that are different from one another. Seeing the two different chains of logic that led us to different places allowed us to question the process that one other took and offer alternative reasoning.
In my experience, this approach worked very well. It felt that we were working together to figure something out that we both wanted to understand. Seeing the motivations behind the conclusions, we each had understanding of where the other was coming from. I and the other person had multiple instances where we each said something along the lines of, “That’s a good point. I’d never thought of that before.” We actually seemed to be changing one another’s mind!
Split Foundation)
The alternative, of course, is when I have had conversations where I and the other person established no shared foundation between us at all. The two of us started by focusing on the differences between us. We didn’t explain the logic that led to our conclusions, except when doing so worked into our critique of the other person’s position.
The result, of course, was far more divisive. The conversation was more prone to devolve into an actual argument, and moments where either of us thought the other person had something insightful to offer were rare.
I think this difference of outcome is very telling. Furthermore, I know that the difference isn’t simply based on the person that I was having each conversation with, because I have had both types of conversation with the same person! In some cases, people might just be belligerent, but at other times it may be the structure of the conversation that invokes one outcome over the other.
Conclusion)
If one only ever experiences the more confrontational form of conversation, he may very well come to assume that the entire enterprise is pointless, and that he should give up trying to seeing eye-to-eye and divorce himself from the other. This would be a very tragic conclusion, particularly since it doesn’t have to be that way.
It is only natural that when we want to encounter a difference of opinion that we would go straight to the matter of contention, but that is the most likely to have us at loggerheads, accomplishing nothing. Though it feels counterintuitive, spending the majority of our conversation on what is shared, building up connection, and only then venturing out into the fringes certainly yields much better results. When two people focus primarily on what they share, they will gravitate to a unified opinion much faster than if they focus on the differences. When we have our shared perspectives as common foundation, securing greater truth becomes the goal of all participants, and we are partners in its discovery. Then, and only then, will that greater revelation be given to us, for then, and only then, will we be ready for it.
And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord.
COMMENTARY
And David danced before the Lord with all his might. And Michal saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart Today we have the example of King David when he was caught in the rapture of praising God. He had just concluded a campaign against the Philistines and capped it off by bringing the Ark of the Covenant back into the heart of Israel. He was evidently very joyous in this moment and took to dancing “with all his might.” Biblical commentaries have stated that this sort of vivacious dance was by no means an unusual practice, but that it was typically performed by a priest. This is likely why Michal felt the king was debasing himself by performing it, she felt he was acting beneath his royal station.
Michal came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, therefore will I play before the Lord. A rift grows between the two of them, but David maintains his reasoning for showing such levity: it was done as an honor to God, and when honoring God called for joyous cavorting, that was simply what David was going to do. As I have already stated, sometimes honoring God calls for quiet dignity, and that is what one should observe in those moments. But sometimes it calls for displays of rapturous joy, and in such cases there is no evil in embracing that spirit. Of course that doesn’t mean we loosen our morals and become obscene, but we are welcome to freely display our joy without shame.
Spiritual Wanderings 