Fairness, Compassion and Political Decisions

1. Life is not fair. Fairness is a value judgement that individuals make. In most people's eyes their own thoughts, words and actions are fair, after all who voluntarily chooses to be unfair? Unfairness is the perception that we, or the group we are associated with, is treated unjustly.

Can we expect to be treated in a just manner? For the sake of this discussion, lets assume that the reader lives in a country with legal system based on the Anglo-American Common Law and values. Before the Law, we insist upon equal justice and in large measure justice as defined by law is served in our country. It is true that those with great wealth and fame tend to have better lawyers, and that their points of view are more often successful than litigants who are poor and from the bottom rungs of the socio-economic order. No system is perfect.

There is no system or laws designed by man that can legislate the heart of other individuals, nor should we wish for such a system. Each person has a whole range of beliefs, prejudices and expectations. People tend to associate with others who hold similar beliefs, prejudices and expectations, and regard chauvinistically others as "lesser". The beliefs of individuals and their groups are in constant conflict, and no law or system can wholly prevent those conflicts and little injustices that occur socially.

2. The first responsiblity of national political leaders is to protect and serve the welfare of the nation and its Constitution. In fulfilling that responsibility some constituents will be ruined, hurt, or die. National political leaders carry a great burden for often their decisions and policies are patently unfair/unjust to some portion of the People they represent, but their higher duty demands a hardened heart and stiff resolve. During times of crisis it is likely that significant disagreement will exist, but the representatives are duty bound to pursue what they deem to be in the best interests of the whole nation.

Sometimes the nation's best interests are served by alliances with others whose values and application of justice differ widely from our own. That doesn't mean that we approve, only that those alliances are deemed necessary to achieve national goals and objectives. If nations only associated with those they were in complete accord with, diplomacy would die and wars would be even more common than they have been throughout history. On the other hand, when the national values of a People exalt humanistic values like compassion and justice a powerful example is drawn. Individuals crave compassion and justice for themselves, and are attracted to those national entities that best personify their longings. The United States has held aloft those ideals for over 200 years, and though some will disagree, the United States is still for most of the world the example of what the personally aspire to.

Political leaders, is to remain effective in their representation of those they serve. This means that they have to be, in our system, re-elected from time-to-time. That involves having the resources to mount a successful campaign to win votes. Hence, the importance of political parties with their organizations and ability to raise/spend money on a candidate's behalf. Parties are dependant upon the active effort of a small number of zealous partisans who tend to be idealists and extremists. Political Parties are a mechanism for achieving power by persuading the People at large that their Party ideals, philosophy, and platform will best benefit the individual voter and his chauvinistic group. Compromise is the heart of politics. Unfortunately, compromise isn't popular with zealots and idealists who would rather the ship sink on a moral point than be saved retreating on some issue.

Thanks for the response Asherman. I was beginning to think no one was interested (perhaps I would have gotten more response if I had looked forward to uncivil discussion).

There is nothing in your post I would necessarily disagree with. In an effort to get a little more out of you I do have a few follow-ups, though.

Life indeed is unfair. While legislation that purposely creates unfairness or gives advantages to just a few should be avoided, in your opinion, should fairness, in any capacity, be a goal of legislation?

Do you see a danger in "greater good" legislation going to far and overshadowing compassion? Should compasssion in any capacity, be a factor of legislation or should there a balance of both?

As a Buddhist I rate compassion very highly, and believe that sometimes I'm less compassionate than I should be. People should be compassionate, but it is too much to expect compassion to trump the "greater good". Is there a risk of seeking the expeditious and practical policy in pursuing the "greater good"? Sure, everything when dealing with complex social and governmental issues involves risk.

Was it Daniel Boone whose motto was, "determine the right thing to do, and then go ahead"? Defining what is "good', much less the "greater good" is always problematical and dependant upon the person making the judgement. In a republican system of government we entrust those decisions to our elected and appointed representatives. They are just as likely to error on "value issues" as any 8th grade drop-out whose skill levels are stretched working for a fast food outfit. We are rightly suspicious of those in whom we invest so much power over our lives. That is why the government system devised by the U.S. Constitution is so important, and has been so effective in protecting our liberties.

During those times when people are passionately divided over what policies the country should follow, it is tempting to demand that the government abandon its responsiblities in favor of some sort of plebescite or democratic system. Those are not really viable systems for a nation like the United States at the beginning of the 21st century. Now more than ever we must rely upon the wisdom of the Constitution.

BTW, good to see you back Joe. If you've been around, I must have been missing your posts.

Thanks for the input Asherman. Again, nothing there I would disagree with.

On one of the illegal immigration threads I was called out for having a "serious lack of basic human decency" for what I thought was a fairly reasonable plan. It got me to thinking about when comapssion should play a role in our governments decisions and exactly how much of a role it should play. So far I'm pretty much in step with your line of thinking. Anybody else have an opinion?




Thanks. My involvment with A2K tends to ebb and flow on a pretty regular basis. I guess this just happens to be a flow time. As always, it is good seeing you around, too.

Funny, my first thought when ever I think something is not fair: Life's not fair. In my mother's voice.

Ah, the old verities ... too often forgotten, or discounted as being old-fashioned.

yeah really, my favorite old adage is "shoot first, ask questions later"

Among my various jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none vocations/avocations, I teach temperament typing in conjunction with conflict management. In the Keirsey/Bates method, 50% of the population at any given time will be 'thinking' people meaning that they make decisions on objective criteria apart from any emotion influence. The other 50% of the population are 'feeling' people who are more likely to go with their gut feelings/emotional response about something apart from more objective criteria.

Needless to say 'thinking people' will sometimes see 'feeling people' as poorly grounded in reality and 'feeling people' can see 'thinking people' as hard nosed, uncaring, uncompassionate, etc. etc.

The lesson to be learned is that input is needed from both camps to arrive at decisions that will have the fewest unintended negative consequences. The reality is that few ever accept that teaching and expend excessive energy in attacking/criticizing/demonizing each other.

Personally, I am apparently a glutton for punishment and/or an eternal optimist because I approach most things, including A2K threads, with the hope that people can be thoughtful, civil, introspective, and will consider myriad components of issues even if they cannot agree with them. I hold out hope that even elected leaders can learn to do that. I think the result might be conclusions that are compassionate, fair, and grounded in reality.

What do you think? Am I hopeless?

No, not hopeless. You just fail to make allowances for differences, and then become upset when the differences seem nonsensical to you. Take your own advice, and use all the tools of persuasion available to you. Trying to "prove" stuff, especially in this environment, is problematical at best. When dealing with large, complex human issues there is seldom clear-cut objective proof for what are essentially personal value judgements. 50% of the people, for instance, are not "rational" with the remainder being driven by emotional needs. Virtually all of us choose our positions and values from a mix of emotion and thought. Many of our words and actions are conditioned responses that have little to do with either thought or emotion.

This media is fundamentally about expressing ourselves through writing, yet many posters seem not to realize that. Here there are no visual clues to mark a humorous aside, or some degree of mental reservation about what is said. Without hearing tonal variation, we can easily miss the rhythmic cadences that give speech so much of its power. In this media we need to be especially sensitive to the words we choose. If you want to convey "rationality", then you have to avoid words and terms that carry enormous loads of emotional baggage. Because it is so easy to be misunderstood, we have to make sure that each of our statements is as clear and complete as it can be made. If people fail to understand what you say, you are to blame for the mistake not the reader whose understanding is limited to that which you actually wrote.

Far too often these threads deteriorate into personal attacks designed to fall just inside the permissable. Folks want to be winners, and that means someone has to be a loser. What is it that a person "wins" or "loses" here? Will it change your bank account? Change the regard your loved ones have for you? Will it make you smarter, or dumber, than you are? If you "lose" a point, will the Universities come to your door to reclaim their degrees? If you "win" can you start putting a "Phd" after your name? This is a trivial thing, and shouldn't become some test of our identity and the value of our thoughts. People need to lighten up, just a bit.

Civility isn't really all that hard to achieve. Don't insult others by mistake. Choose words that are clearly understood, and don't overreach to "prove" your point. Be gracious, and complement people when they do seem to understand your message, even when they completely disagree with you. Be patient and forgive the failings of others. Talk less and think more.

Asherman writes


Upset? Naw. I did when I first started posting on A2K a long time ago because this was my first experience with this type medium and I wasn't prepared for the hatefulness, rudeness, insults etc. that some seem compelled to demonstrate here. I had not experienced that from anybody on line or from other than a very few certifiable nutcases in real life. I've long become hardened and immune to that stuff though. I am still vulnerable to being 'hurt' (for want of a better word) by those whom I like and respect, but those are almost always not insulting or malicious when they disagree. And of course we all feel warm and fuzzy when others agree with us.

So far as failing to make allowances for differences? I'll think about that one. I've done conflict management for far too long to not know how to do that. Whether I practice what I preach, well I have to allow for the possibility that I don't always do that.

I often wonder if people actually want civility or really just like the fight that so often occurs in the political and spiritual threads. Take this thread for example, I thought it would be a pretty active topic and worth discussing The few comments we have are on task and civil. Yet it has never become a very active thread.

I may be wrong and either everyone agrees with what has been written and has nothing to add or maybe it really isn't that interesting a topic, but I'm guessing that it is more along the lines of where there is smoke there is interest and in this case no smoke = no interest.

Peace studies have never been overly popular, neccessary as they are.

Cycloptichorn

I have little quibble with this, other than to note that my biggest bombs in the way of threads have been both of the civil discussion variety, and the "i hope this really p*sses you off" variety.

I started a thread on the topics of the coming national election, rather than the personalities. Asherman responded, and we got quite a few civil replies. We got a couple which dealt with personalities rather than issues.

By and large, though, there was little meat for completely belittling and excoriating those with whom one disagrees. It is not an implausible contention that this would impair the thread's popularity.

By the same token, when i start a thread intended to p*ss people off, the result is rather of a firecracker character. Big bang, a little smoke, and quickly finished. The threads which endure are those which deeply affect people on topics which continue to get under their skin, without reference to the pyrotechnic possibilities.

When Walter started the "Antiwar Movement" thread, which became the "US, UN and Iraq" thread, now in its tenth interation, he touched a subject which engages the attention, continually, of people all over the planet.

Maybe so. Whenever I've attempted to start a thread on a noncontroversail subject, it get little or no response at all. Even a thread in which I ask people their personal opinion on something--one recently was on how many freedoms (smoking, swearing, porn, etc.) can we give up without losing our freedom got a number of looks but not a single response. There was nothing to fight about there I guess.

It could just be the makeup of the on line family too. Maybe certain on line families are like families in real life. Some real life families yell, scream and throw hissy fits a lot while others are quiet, civil, and pleasant to each other. I participate at another site debating politics, religion, etc. and for the most part the discussions there are quite civil and non insulting. But then, civility is a requirement for participation in the site and it is pretty well enforced when a troll gets loose in there.

There is a fine art to disagreeing and accepting disagreement without enmity, however. I think many have never learned how to do that, and as a result there is far too little compassion, fairness, and civility demonstrated. I wonder if that slops over into real life decisions, policy, laws, etc. too?

I would agree with that, set, and never meant to imply that arguing always makes for an active thread. However you have to admit that the Anti-war/War debate is often quite heated. Part of this is indeed that it is a subject that people feel very strongly about and tend to argue very passionately about. I would hardly call that thread the epitome of civil discourse, though... not that there is anything wrong with that.

Don't get me wrong... I enjoy a little arguement now and again myself. It was brought up that some peope feel the need to "win" and was merely weighing in on that thought.

I saw your point. I personally do not consider that issue of civility to be as important as it is alleged to be. The internet is a unique venue in which behavior can and often does radically depart form accepted social norms.

I real life, i'd be out the door as fast as the merest slip of courtesy allowed if you sat down next to me and attempted to discuss religion or politics.

Here, however . . .

Carry on then...

I do tend to carry on, don't i . . . oh well, i'm resigned to it . . .

On the other hand, lack of civility closes doors to communication. Faced with hostility, folks tend to either "dig-in" to defensive positions, or make an unthinking charge into a kill-zone. In neither case have you communicated anything useful. Such tactics may have some slight entertainment value, but in that case The Simpsons are funnier than baiting some schulb who thinks the U.S. is a reincarnation of Nazi Germany.

We get a lot further when we respect one another and are patient of our common failings. Get the other person to open their ears and minds, and you just might reduce the dissonance in the world. Voltaire listed three reasons for encouraging open discussions: To correct the errors in the thinking of others with our perfection of knowledge; To learn and correct our own errors from the perfection of knowledge by others, and; to arrive at an exchange of imperfect knowledge from which a more complete understanding might arise. None of that can happen very well in a shouting match between partisans who don't give a damn about anything but their own narrow opinions. For such people, its best to just let them fester away on their own poisoned thoughts.