Thread by @sunnshiiny

I find it interesting that most people seek simple universal ethical rules that define right and wrong.

Killing is bad. Stealing is bad. Lying is bad.

Simple. So all examples of these behaviours are wrong behaviour.

Except life isn’t simple. It’s complex. So simple universal rules don’t adequately define right and wrong.

War is sometimes required and that involves killing to protect others.

Who hasn’t rationalized copying copyrighted material without permission? It’s stealing.

And who wouldn’t lie to protect someone’s feelings. Candor is not always appropriate.

Navigating ethical decisions is complex and requires more than universal platitudes to shape behaviour. Because life is not simple. So simple rules are general guides, not actually rigid rules.

My husband tells me I too easily bend the rules to suit my objectives. I tell him he’s too married to rules for my liking. Both of us are highly ethical people. Neither of us commit crimes or use ethics to gain advantage over others.

But we still have very different views of ethics. He believes they’re simple. I don’t.

Funny thing, both of us are right.

In most situations, simple guidelines are sufficient.

Where difficulty emerges is when complexity rears its head.

Complex situations require attentive navigation to determine the most ethical choice.

Commonly known as being between a rock and a hard place.

When the most ethical choice isn’t obvious, you’re in a complex situation.

And navigating complexity can be quite intimidating and humbling.

That’s why my husband avoids it as often as he can. Most people do. Most people don’t like complexity.

When you teach a child about morals and ethics, you start off using simple universal constructs. Violence is wrong, helping others is right.

Simple. Easy to process and understand.

But that’s not real life. Real life throws curve balls and obscures effect. It’s complex.

We teach children the fundamentals of ethical behaviour. But few prepare children for complex situations.

And that is the source of much conflict. Applying simple rules to complexity. It doesn’t work.

However, some people insist that it must.

Which is why I’m forever curious how people process complexity.

There are no universal morals. But there are universal guidelines. Killing, stealing and lying are wrong in most situations.

However, there is always an exception to every rule.

Someone trying to kill me drastically alters my ethics about killing.

It’s hard to rationalize stealing, but my kids Halloween candy and provides adequate rationale every year.

And I quite easily lied to my children when I had to put our dog down because she was very sick. They think she went to live with another family.

Complexity requires a foundation of ethical beliefs, but requires flexibility for complex situations.

So when we discuss what’s ethical in politics, complexity is ALWAYS at play. In a pluralist society we can expect complexity is always present.

So how do we navigate complexity using simple rules? We use the “rules” as guides, not as rigidly applied absolutes.

Those who use ethical values as rigid absolutes are intimidated by complexity. They want to eliminate all complexity to make life easy and simple. Which is why it’s interesting that so many progressives fall into this category.

In the past I had wrongly assumed that it was just the political right that had difficulty with complexity. But it seems the left is experiencing difficulty as well. That’s what happens when polarization is imposed on an electorate.

You’re asked to pick sides.

Life and it’s complexity is being reduced to simple platitudes and rigid interpretations of ethical choices.

One slip up or mistake and you’re forever labelled unethical. Choosing to recognize an issue as complex can get one permanently banned as a tribal member.

If you’re applying simple rules to ethical dilemmas, you’re part of what’s wrong with politics in modern society. Life and it’s problems are not simple. There are no simple solutions and there are no ethically simple choices. Life is NOT black or white.

If you see your ethical choices from a binary perspective, you’re being radicalized and you’re falling into extremism.

Recognizing there is a multitude of perspectives to consider and ponder in every ethical choice is progressive and open minded.

Navigating through complexity is progressive and requires critical thinking.

Simple rules remove the need to think about your choices. It makes you an easy target to manipulate and tell you smears based on conjecture and here-say.

It’s a sign you aren’t using empathy.

Empathy requires you to examine complexity and analyze the facts from another’s perspective.

Polarization removes empathy. And without empathy we are merely political pawns repeating simple platitudes.

Complexity is the essence of human existence and individual experience.

And as progressives, it’s what drives us to embrace diversity, plurality and face conflict.

Homogeneity is simple existence.

Navigating complexity is thriving.

I don’t want to merely exist. I want to thrive and for others to thrive as well. So embrace complexity.

It’s messy, requires much more investment in critical thinking, it comes with conflict, but it sure makes life more interesting.