We Can Work It Out, Try and See It My Way

I entered the Great American Think-Off again this year, the 2013 edition. The question posed was

“Which is more ethical: sticking to your principles or being willing to compromise?” My response didn't earn me a trip to Minnesota for the final debate but I enjoyed writing this piece and more importantly, researching it. My title indicates that I believe a willingness to compromise is necessary to put one's principles to the test.

Our government seems pretty dysfunctional at times and one of the biggest problem is everyone sticking to their guns. At the same time this is happening it seems everyone and his brother is quoting the founding fathers, usually in defense of refusing to compromise. Well, here's a picture of the founding fathers compromising, with rather obvious success. Of course there wasn't a 24-hour news cycle then and they still had to lock themselves behind closed doors but they hashed out their differences and got something done.



 

We can work it out, Try and see it my way

 



Principles are the fundamental truths, doctrines, or motivation forces, upon which others are based—building blocks upon which we structure our whole social order.

A good principle to build on might be: Anything that can be built can be built badly.

Only through willingness to compromise are we able to put our principles to the test. Therefore, compromise isn’t only more ethical but also imperative in determining which principles are worth sticking to and which are not.

Madison foresaw the problem in Federalist 10 when he wrote about doing “whatever the Gut tells us” and warned that because mankind’s propensity towards hostility is so strong, even the smallest of distinctions can be cause for conflict.

In  1970, everyone was tired of the Vietnam War; those of us fighting it, students—as I had been—still protesting it, parents watching newsreel of their sons dying on foreign soil and politicians no longer able to defend it.    

But it would continue for five more years because the young were consumed by principles of righteous protest, the silent majority was hung up on the principle of my country right or wrong, and politicians, looking to hold onto their seats, aligned with voters rather than try to lead them. Consensus to end the war was not reached because the country was too busy fighting amongst itself.  Everyone was listening to his Gut, sticking to his principle.

In the early 1860 our nation literally did fight itself. Lincoln’s enduring principle was survival of the union. Jefferson Davis believed just as strongly in secession. Both sides stuck to their principles, one lost and the other won—not because its principle was right but because it had the stronger army. Fighting for principle is always a crapshoot.

Today we accept that slavery is immoral. This principle was just as true before the Civil War. Nevertheless the nation endured tremendous hardships because the South, believing strongly that they could not survive without slavery, refused to question their principle. 

In recent years, George W. Bush spoke of listening to his gut. He wasn’t the first leader to do so and he won’t be the last but he should be. We live in a very complicated world that doesn’t have to also be so divided if we could only stop listening to our Gut. But in today’s world, reasoned thought all too often takes a back seat to what feels right, even when much of what we think is reasoned principle is nothing more than the echo of the loudest voices—talk radio, television cable news, and special interests groups.

So how do we separate good principles based on informed opinion from the bad that seems to emanate endlessly from out of the woodwork?

Actually, the Great American Think-Off illustrates perfectly the fruits attainable from willingness to compromise. Many ideas are submitted—call them principles—and judges choose the best four finalists to defend their position. The consensus reached isn’t a weakened compromise position but rather a battletested proposal with substance. A position defended with the argument, “That’s my position and I’m sticking to it,” would not advance.

Principles have to be scrutinized—continually—to prove their worth.

Questioning one’s own principles is called introspection and altering them in any way is called changing one’s mind. Most would agree that changing one’s mind for the better is the ethical thing to do.  

Within a group, compromise is the way we question our principles. The willingness to seek the best solution by putting one’s principles up against those of others rather than doggedly sticking to your own is the most ethical approach in an ever-changing world with lots of people, lots of ideas, lots of opinions, and lots of problems that need solving.

A thought occurred to me while watching the Grammy Awards this year. Just because a song is popular, has a beat, and may or may not be accompanied by real words doesn’t make it a good song. A songwriter’s goal might be to inspire others by putting words to music but good intentions don’t necessarily result in good songs.

I think principles are a lot like songs—everyone has their favorites but that doesn’t make them all good. Ethics demands that we separate the good from the bad.

In the music world one can hear a song, get hooked on a feeling and conclude it is the best song ever but in the real world, that gut feeling—call it principle—should only be the starting point.