“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” — Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
There’s a reason the arc of the moral universe inevitably bends toward justice. Bend it toward justice and everyone wins or bend it the other way and everyone loses. So, how do “I” ensure that “I” am bending it toward justice?
When I was an adolescent, freedom meant having a driver’s license. To get it, I had to follow a four-step process.
In Step 1, I studied a vehicle driver’s knowledge standard. In Step 2, I had to pass a knowledge test to demonstrate that my knowledge was consistent with the knowledge standard. Step 2 gave me the legal right to practice driving under the supervision of an experienced practitioner. In Step 3, I practiced driving. In Step 4, I had to pass a road test to demonstrate that my behavior was consistent with the knowledge standard. Step 4 gave me the freedom to drive without supervision.
To the person I have become a half century later, freedom means human beings treating each other like human beings, and it depends on a similar four-step process.
In Step 1, the learner studies the “being human” knowledge standard. In Step 2, the learner needs to pass a knowledge test to demonstrate that the learner’s knowledge is consistent with the knowledge standard. Step 2 provisionally grants the learner a larger circle of influence. In Step 3—ideally under the supervision of an experienced practitioner—the learner practices behaving in a way that is consistent with the knowledge standard. In Step 4, the learner needs to pass a “road test” demonstrating that the learner’s behavior is consistent with the knowledge standard. “Freedom” and “a reflexive adherence to the being human knowledge standard” are different terms expressing the same meaning.
Fortunately, we all get to follow our own personal copy of the knowledge standard. The original copy emerged roughly twelve thousand generations ago at the origin of our species. The pre- and post-origin versions are only slightly different, but because we live in a complex adaptive social system, this one small change had an enormous effect. See The Band (E06).
Because we all inherit a copy of the knowledge standard in our uniquely human DNA, a sufficiently accurate documented statement rings true and is helpful.
The Golden Rule is the idea that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot. The “Golden Rule” and the “being human knowledge standard” are different phrases expressing the same meaning.
In what way is the “Golden Rule” phrase problematic? Principles are made to be adhered to, and rules are made to be broken.
To be more specific, a principle explains how to behave in every context, and a rule explains how to adhere to the principle in a specific context. So, if the principle is being adhered to in a familiar context, then a familiar rule is being followed. Conversely, if the principle is being adhered to in a novel context, then a familiar rule is being broken and a novel rule is being established.
Ultimately, everything humanity thinks of as a “principle” is a tradition-specific version of our species-specific knowledge standard, but there’s got to be a better name. The One Principle is the term I’ll be using in the rest of this essay.
The first scientific principle—the idea that science involves subjecting one’s assumptions to rigorous skepticism—is from the scientific tradition. The “due process” phrase is from the legal tradition. Luke 10:27 is from the Christian tradition. They are all tradition-specific expressions of The One Principle.
Why is this relevant? For one thing, it means that humanity does not exist in a “rule of law” social system. Instead, the system functions because we adhere to—and is dysfunctional to the extent that we disregard—The One Principle.
If driving a vehicle is reasonably safe, then your local department of transportation takes the vehicle licensing knowledge standard seriously. If human freedom and human bodies are safe, then we are all taking The One Principle seriously.
The first time I looked at the vehicle licensing knowledge standard, it seemed complicated. It had a lot of rules, and it was apparent that the knowledge test would include many multiple-choice questions. By comparison, the “being human” knowledge test is simple. It includes only two questions, and each question has only two options.
Question 1: Is it ever acceptable and/or necessary to disregard The One Principle? Choose one of the following two options. Q1a: no. Q1b: yes.
Start by choosing Q1a. That’s the easy part. Deliberately practicing until your behavior is consistent with the knowledge standard is the second hardest thing a human can do, and the hardest is living with the long-term consequences of choosing Q1b.
In other words, getting the easy part right is existentially important. Q1a doesn’t make the difficult part easy. Instead, Q1b makes the difficult part impossible.
Human interaction is mandatory, not optional. When humans interact, conflicts emerge. A conflict is resolved in service of the common interest, or it is left unresolved in service of a limited interest. We cannot resolve every conflict one-by-one in the sequence in which it emerges, but if we are not continuously resolving the most important conflicts in our direct personal relationships, then we are adding to that relationship’s large and growing inventory of unresolved conflicts, and one part of the human social system is unhealthy.
The human social system is comprised of subsystems that are comprised of subsystems that are comprised of subsystems, etc. An unhealthy system is a symptom of unhealthy subsystems. Treating a symptom is necessary but it is also insufficient because it does not eradicate the disease. When the disease is being eradicated, it is being eradicated in the system’s most elementary component. If enough of the system’s most elementary components are healthy, then the system is healthy.
Question 2: What is the human social system’s most elementary component? Choose one of the following two options. Q2a: an individual. Q2b: a direct personal relationship between two individuals.
Q2a is a good but mistaken guess. The most elementary component is a direct personal relationship between two individuals. That means virtually everyone has a direct personal influence on several of the system’s most elementary components.
Again, the “what” is simple and the “how” is difficult. Again, getting the simple part right is necessary because it makes the difficult part possible.
Within a direct personal relationship between two people, applying The One Principle involves resolving the relationship’s most important conflicts. Conflict resolution is itself a process.
Along with a personal copy of the knowledge standard, we also inherit a copy of the conflict resolution process from our prehistoric ancestors. So, although it is not in this essay, a sufficiently accurate documented version of the conflict resolution process also rings true and is helpful. See Happy Families (E09).
Two parties (individuals and/or groups) interact, a conflict of interest emerges, and what happens next is one of three scenarios.
In the ideal scenario, The One Principle is applied, and the conflict is resolved in service of the common interest at the expense of both parties’ short-term interest. In the less-than-ideal scenario, Party A does—but Party B does not—apply The One Principle. The conflict is left unresolved in service of Party B’s short-term interest at Party A’s short-term expense (although that short-term expense is a good long-term investment). In the worst-case scenario, neither party applies The One Principle in service of their party-specific short-term interest and at the expense of the common interest.
In the legal tradition, Step 1 involves studying due process. In Step 2, the learner passes the bar exam. Step 3 is a period of articling that involves practicing until applying the due process principle is a reflexive response. In Step 4, the learner is granted a law degree by demonstrating that applying the principle is a reflexive response.
I am not a lawyer, but I do have a Bachelor of Science degree.
In the scientific tradition, Step 1 involves studying the first scientific principle. In Step 2, the learner is granted a “university entrance” high school diploma. In Step 3, the learner practices applying the first principle until doing so is a reflexive response. In Step 4, the learner is granted a science degree by demonstrating that applying the principle is as automatic as hitting the brake when a traffic light turns red.
So, why do so many people with law and science degrees reflexively respond to a conflict of interest with some version of the “I’m right, you’re wrong, and this conversation is over” response? Because although humans have a natural talent for conflict resolution, a talent does not develop itself. Instead, we develop our natural talents through deliberate practice.
Ironically, although I received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1980, I didn’t discover the first scientific principle until after I retired and then found it in the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s “Scientific Method” article.
Simply put, “doing science” and “adhering to the first scientific principle” are different phrases expressing the same meaning. When I try to engage people with science degrees on that subject, most reflexive responses imply, “I’m right, you’re wrong, and this conversation is over,” and a smaller but significant number reflexively adhere to the principle.
To paraphrase Aristotle (384-322 BCE), we are what we repeatedly do. Adhering to The One Principle is not an act, but a habit.
Our civilization’s many traditions emerged when a small group of people agreed to adhere to The One Principle in a tradition-specific context, then rules—ways of applying the principle in specific contexts—emerged. Traditions inevitably become more sophisticated over time. Unfortunately, there are reasons to stop taking The One Principle seriously. Fortunately, every single one of them is a bad reason.
In any tradition, “applying The One Principle in a novel context,” “establishing a novel rule,” and “breaking a familiar rule” are different phrases expressing the same meaning. Conversely, “imposing a familiar rule in a novel context” and “disregarding The One Principle” are different phrases expressing the same meaning.
On the one hand, we did not inherit justice, science, the world’s great religions, democracy, and capitalism from our prehistoric ancestors. Instead, our historic ancestors invented those traditions, and they are our cultural (meaning “not genetic”) inheritance. On the other hand, the founding principle of every one of those traditions is a tradition-specific way of expressing The One Principle.
The word “respect” is another way to say, “apply The One Principle in every context.” In short, mutual respect is ideal, unilateral respect is much less than ideal, and mutual disrespect is by far the worst-case scenario.
If you’re unsure of what to make of this essay, try this simple task. Pick any relationship between any two parties and play the “dispassionate observer” role. If both parties are dedicating an appropriate amount of time, energy, and attention to the resolution of the relationship’s most important conflicts in service of their common interest, their relationship is a manifestation of the ideal scenario. If one party is like Party A and the other is like Party B, then it is a manifestation of the less-than-ideal scenario, and it is otherwise a manifestation of the worst-case scenario.
What follows is a much more important task. Deliberately practice applying The One Principle in your direct personal relationships in every context.
We all have a natural talent for conflict resolution that needs to be developed to be useful. Undeveloped, the tangible impact of a large effort is insignificant. Fully developed, a small effort’s impact is invariably positive and potentially significant. Just remember that the less one practices, the harder being human gets, and the more one practices, the easier it gets.
Ideally, you are already resolving the most important conflicts in your direct personal relationships, and then the most elementary components of the human social system that you influence directly are healthy. Otherwise, you know where to start.
If you really don’t know where to start, start with me. It is up to you to decide whether we have a direct personal relationship. The simple way to initiate that relationship is to subscribe to my fee-free newsletter and use the comment field. Or use my website’s contact page: www.wisdomtheo.com/contact/
Regardless, if you, the reader, and I disagree about anything I’ve written in this essay, then we have drawn conflicting conclusions. In the less-than-ideal scenario, you leave the conflict unresolved without due process, and without subjecting our conflicting assumptions to skepticism, rigorous or otherwise. In the ideal scenario, we work together to resolve the conflict.