Competing Interests, Polarization, Moralizing
4/10/2020
I have spoken often in these pages about complementarity as it pertains to the human mind and human behavior. Complementarity occurs when two seemingly opposite things, like inhaling and exhaling, are both necessary to create a single process (breathing). But what do we call it when two or more things seemingly have nothing to do with each other but are, in fact, connected or related? That is what I want to focus upon today.
Imagine that I am an author and I am writing a book that I want to be authentic and realistic and that you are a publisher and you want to publish a book that is going to sell lots of copies. When you read my manuscript, you decide that it’s a good book but adding a few paragraphs of gratuitous sex will increase sales. But, as the author, for me those paragraphs are neither authentic nor realistic. Here, what I want (to be authentic) and what you want (to sell books) are seemingly unrelated but are, in fact, connected by virtue of there being a book. Our interests in the book are different but if I get what I want, you don’t get what you want and vice versa. We say we have competing interests with respect to the book. We can also describe the situation as having competing harms because there is no possibility, in our respective opinions on the issue, of a win-win situation. One or the other of us will experience some harm, either to my integrity or your book sales
But there is a problem that we haven’t yet considered, isn’t there? After all, I as the author, would very much like to sell my book while you as the publisher would very much like to have a book to sell. Consequently, the competing interests or harms are not just between us but also within each of us. So what shall we do? Well, as civilized people, we will attempt to negotiate our respective interests. Initially, I will argue that I don’t want to publish my book at all if it cannot be as I wrote it. You, on the other hand, will argue that you can’t imagine the book being sold if it remains as I wrote it. The more heated the argument gets, the more determined we each become, each of us declaring the appropriateness of our own view and the inappropriateness of the others view. This is called polarization wherein the more I push my side, the more you push your side. Our sides become increasingly more divergent. Ultimately, each side begins to moralize their own and the other’s position. I might declare that you are a greedy bastard who only cares about money and not about people while you might declare that I am a stubborn bastard whose practicality is compromised by my narcissism.
How do we find a resolution of our disagreement? Again, what has been forgotten? We have focused on the competing interests between us and we have denied the competing interest within us. In point of fact, to some extent, we each want what the other person wants. But so long as we are polarizing and moralizing, we will never come to a resolution. To resolve the problem we must stop moralizing and acknowledge the truth. And the truth is that we ourselves share the interests of the other person. We do not JUST have competing interests but we also have similar interests.
Now, if you haven’t figured out where I’m going with all this and why I’m writing about such things, I’m going to make it plain. Americans have an interest in being healthy and doing what it takes to stay healthy. American also have an interest in working and surviving economically as well. When the Wuhan virus struck, we were given a choice to make. Stay home and remain physically healthy or go to work and remain economically healthy. We had a competing interests. And if we chose to go to work, we risked getting sick and if we chose to stay home, we risked going broke. We were faced with a competing harms.
There is plenty to argue about with respect to our current situation. We can argue about where the virus came from, what to name it, the quality of the information or misinformation about it, whether decisions were made to early or too late, who was responsible for those decisions, etc. However, NONE of those arguments will help us resolve our conflict of interest between staying physically healthy versus staying economically healthy.
What we can know for a certainty, however, is who is polarizing and who is moralizing about the conflict. There are some who are declaring that staying physically healthy is the only choice (polarizing) and that people who are concerned about the state of the economy and the financial health of the country are uncaring selfish people who are only concerned about money over human life (moralizing). There are others who are saying that those who are caring only about physical health are fear mongers whose fear will destroy the economy and cause untold harm to the nation’s citizens. The content is different but the polarizing and moralizing is the same. Each is trying to gain advantage for only one of the two competing interests.
These people are easy to recognize by virtue of what they say and anything they say should be ignored. They should be ignored because they themselves are being ignorant (ignore-ant). That is, they are ignoring the fact that there are two competing interests and that they themselves hold both competing interests. They are ignoring the fact that there are competing harms in choosing one option exclusively.
The people who must be attended to are those who can and do give voice to both sides of our competing interests, realizing that there is harm in choosing either one exclusively.
Ultimately, risk must be taken on each side. Risk going back to work and getting sick AND risk staying home and going broke. Ultimately, each person will have to decide what to do and how to mitigate their risks or optimize their benefits. If the government decides you can go back to work, you don’t have to. If the government says you should continue to shelter in place, you don’t have to. You might get sick or you might get arrested or you might become unemployed but it will be your decision. You cannot blame someone else.
The fact is that life is full of competing interests and competing harms. Life is full of risks and choices that must be made all the time, every day. We decide to drive cars though deadly accidents occur. We decide to ride motorcycles. We decide to fly on airplanes. We decide to go to work during flu season. We decide to invest in the stock market. We decide to get married and have children. We decide to get out of bed and leave our homes. We decide to smoke or ride without seatbelts or speed, all of which have attendant deadly risks. Life is not without risk, even the risk of death. Yes, we constantly live in denial of those risks. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
We, each of us, are responsible for what information we pay attention to. We, each of us, are responsible for what we decide to do with that information. And each of us is responsible for the consequences of the information we chose to believe and the actions we took on the basis of that information. In taking personal responsibility for our own decision, the government, the media, a political party or an “expert” does not control us. In that way, if government, the media, a political party or an “expert” tells you something, as a person responsible for yourself, you will stand up and ask them about both sides of the conflict. You will ask how they will deal with the competing interests that YOU realize exist even if they do not. And in the end, YOU will choose what to do. And you, not they, will be responsible for YOUR life and YOUR impact on others. That, my friends, is real liberty.
