3 Things to Remember as the Election Approaches

Electing a president into office is a big responsibility. The Commander in Chief is an important role, and plays a significant part in not only political agendas but also in providing an example to the American people.

For the most part, everybody is doing their best to do the right thing. People generally affiliate with a specific political ideology because it most closely aligns with what they (passionately) believe to be most beneficial to humanity and the future of our country.

At the same time, election season tends to bring out the abhorrence in people regarding some of the more sensitive moral issues. And one of the most difficult and most fascinating things about philosophy (in my opinion) is that there really is no way to determine an absolute truth with respect to ethicality. 

Which tends to get overlooked during heated conversations surrounding morality in political issues. We cannot choose “the right answer” to these political questions, because there is no “right answer”; it is often a matter of philosophy, morality, and ethicality. 

So, to aid in understanding and increase tolerance of each other on sensitive issues, here are three things to remember during this election season before making degrading comments about another’s political views.   

Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I do not respect you (although sometimes it does).

My parents love me. I know that. But as I was growing up, I came to understand that their love for me was not synonymous to their acceptance of every decision that I made. Their refusal to tolerate some of my behaviors was not an indication that they did not love me.

Similarly, my refusal to tolerate a behavior does not mean that I am without respect or empathy for the involved persons. I care deeply about people, and I (like my peers) want to see success and happiness for them.

With that said, I will not tolerate practices that are incongruous with my moral affiliation. I do this out of principle: I must be comfortable in my own skin, especially with issues related to morality. And I respect individuals that live by this same principle, even when their moral views are different than mine.

If you blatantly deny my stance on a political issue solely on the cognitively ambiguous grounds of “bigotry”, however, my respect for your opposing argument diminishes. If your debate tactic is to make unkind remarks and put others down because their political affiliation or moral stance is different than yours, my respect for you diminishes.

Which brings me to my next point.

My world view is not “fragile” because I refuse to tolerate everyone and everything.

I recently came across a twitter post, and I want to take a moment to talk about it. The post read:

“If your worldview is so fragile that you must shun any perspective contradicting it, it’s likely that your view needs drastic adjustment.”

As I just mentioned, I will not tolerate every behavior and every practice of every individual. That does not mean that I dislike individuals that participate in a behavior that I disagree with; in fact, I have a lot of respect for some people of very different moral affiliations than my own.

Nonetheless, I firmly believe that actions have consequences and that an individual is responsible for the consequences of the decisions that they make. I believe that what is popular is not always what is ethical (the Holocaust is a quintessential example), and I maintain the inalienable human right to preserve and stand up for what I believe to be moral.

I will always uphold your right to do the same.

But standing up for your personal moral affiliation should never consist of belittling people of the opposing view. That kind of behavior never acceptable.

If your response to an opposing stance on a moral issue is simply, “I don’t know how anyone could believe…,” then you should probably try very hard to come to that understanding before defining a position for yourself, and condescending people of the opposing argument.  

I spend a lot of time pondering a moral issue and ensure that I soundly understand both sides of the issue before making a decision on my personal stance. And even once I have established that stance, I continue to observe both sides of the argument with as much equivalency in consideration as I can.

My opposition to your political and /or moral views does not make me uneducated, unethical, bigoted, uncaring, or (especially) a “blind follower” or “sheep”. First of all, I am none of those things; Secondly, I take issues regarding morality and ethicality very seriously. And I will stand up for my position on those issues.

That’s not fragility. It’s integrity.

My intolerance is not ignorance. Kindly exclude me from that generalization.

And by that, I mean: please kindly refrain from all generalizations. They are often hurtful and rarely accurate.

One of the most troubling things that I have observed relating to these issues is when two opposing sides of an argument make derogative, sweeping generalizations about individuals of the opposing argument.

Please never do that. Not only is it unkind and generally untrue, it is unhelpful.

If I ever express intolerance, it is not without significant consideration. And it does not change the way that I feel about someone that expresses tolerance for the same issue. Unless, of course, that person is derogatory, unkind, or otherwise antipathetic toward individuals with different perceptions of morality than their own.

Because we need more kindness toward, and certainly more respect for, individuals with differing opinions.

And much less excoriation.