An Argument for Not Standing Behind Your Principles
Sometimes we have to get out in front of our principles and act for the common good.
Political movements that claim to stand for human freedom and oppose government regulation, applaud restricting a person’s most intimate private choices.
Partisans that stand for minimally constrained free enterprise economies attack businesses for profit maximization strategies.
People who want to protect adults from being offended by words, say they support free speech.
Advocates opposed to controlling the minds of young men and women want to restrict the books available for them read.
Groups that support peaceful conduct between nations support all or nothing victories in war.
Religions that follow a universal God, claim that God supports their nation more than others.
People who support a skeptical approach to ideas, show no doubt for the latest “scientific” fad or “fact.”
Folks that claim undying love and support for their country are ignorant of its history or want to keep others ignorant.
Supporters of education, seem not to care whether or not students graduate ready for vocations, avocations and general citizenship… if it costs more money.
Those of us that rail at inequality, support a college admission system that ensures the replacement of present elites by their offsprings.
People who argue that we should never talk about politics, say they believe in democracy which depends upon people being informed and talking about political issues.
Why this confusion? Is it just weakness or maybe a fear of standing alone? Is it being unable to see the inconsistencies? We are living in troubled and confusing times. We are pulled and pushed in different directions, by social pressure, conflicting personal interests, special circumstances, romantic whims, self-importance, fear of rejection and so on. Is it all just too much to handle?
Perhaps we are simply practical realists, willing to admitit that our “principles” are vague abstractions, only helpful as a “holding pattern,” when issues are unclear and facts unavailable.
The realist might go on to explain that principles gain us good standing in the community. Early in life we are taught to have them and told that they will make us admirable people, good citizens. But they are very general and come with implicit qualifications. That is, we have also been taught, “there are always exceptions.”
My own guess is that we know instinctively that they are not to be used for serious matters, that they are poor substitutes for understanding the problem and weighing the alternatives and balancing important interests—which is what real living is all about.
Even those that generally hide behind their beliefs seem to know what to do in emergencies, or when their own interests are on the table.
What if we simply admit that general principles have some value, but less, the more they are general. And then ask our friends of that other party, to join the bucket brigade when a building is on fire, even those who “generally” believe people who play with matches should learn from their mistakes.
I wrote this comment to John Ryder, but am not sure that the rest will see it. So I'm repeating it in the hope that others of you would like to share a thought. Daryl?
John, I know I was being somewhat devious with this post. In fact, I started out with the discrepancies and intended to make the same point you are making. And then it seemed to me that there was something more to say, both more interesting and more worth saying.
We need more serious depth to our thinking before relying on “principle.” It has become for many merely convenience. And that might be all that needs to be said. In a follow-up post this weekend I’ll try to argue that as a practical (political) matter it can serve a useful purpose.
What troubled me, as I laid out the discrepancies, was the easy manner in which the “principle” could be dispensed with in order to reach the choice one feels necessary. It is if the principle is a lovely thing, but only worn at special occasions and those mainly performances.
Can an idea be so abstract as to lose practical meaning? There is such richness in the present moment, so much harm and joy in the immediate choice. Does the distinction, perceived, between the experiential moment and any interpretation of a precept, not force us to see our choices as having as much integrity as our “principles.”
Excepting the moral philosopher’s efforts to shore up our precepts with reassuring logic, why not consider the ordinary use of “principle” of a suspect attempt to guide action. In fact, as I believe lawyers say, when you don’t have the law on your side, you argue facts. That’s legitimate.
This is all well said, but I would make a further plea for the value of general principles. We can of course recognize that there can be exceptions and fuzzy cases where their applicability is unclear, but I would propose a general rule that if we find ourselves expressing contradictory opinions, or judgements that are inconsistent with our own general principles, we ought at least pause for a moment and reflect on that fact. We ought to ask ourselves in such a case whether we really do want to be inconsistent in our ideas, or whether we may want to revise our judgment.