Finding Moral Common Ground in Divided Times

Before we argue, let’s remember what we agree on

It is a cliche that we live in polarized times. Probably times have always been polarized, but it does seem its more extreme and pervasive these days.

Even when friends and family begin discussing an issue, it can quickly go south. One person begins by stating their view, maybe doing do as calmly and respectfully as they can, and then the other side presents an opposing view, and things often quickly escalate into tension, defensiveness, hostility, and even the rupturing of relationships.

How do we find common ground to begin talking again?

Is it possible to temporarily separate basic morality from political strategies, and agree on basic moral intuitions that most of us share? If we can come together over those, can we allow for politicial differences and begin living our shared humanity with civility again? Can we begin working together?

In Indian culture, it is said there are three kinds of debate: vada, jalpa, and vitanda. In vitanda, one criticizes the position of others without putting forth a position of one’s own. In jalpa, one has a position and seeks to defeat the other’s opinion and establish one’s own as correct. In vada, one meets together with another to try to discover what the truth is. Of the three, the Bhagavadgita says God is present when vada is practiced (10.32)¹.

In traditional vada, the interlocutors draw on a shared pool of authority: shastra, or Vedic scripture. Today when discussing controversial issues, it seems we need more vada and less jalpa and vitanda. Yet to do so we need a shared source of agreement, something to begin with that we both agree on.

Immigration

Let’s take a timely example. In the US, ICE is currently arresting people suspected of being illegal immigrants, detaining them, and then attempting to deport them.

Some may agree with the basic policy here, and some may not. Some may be in favour of more open immigration policies and allowing people who have built lives in the US to stay if possible. They believe this is better for the immigrants in question and for society as a whole. They may believe that with the climate crisis worsening, we in the northern hemisphere will need be willing to give refuge to more people.

Others believe that immigration should be more tightly restricted, that open immigration is bad for American citizens and the economy, and that we should err on the side of strictly policing those suspected of being in the country illegally. They may believe that its time for countries to put their own economic and social needs first, and other countries should sort out their own problems and deal with their own citizens.

People have strong feelings and opinions on either side (including myself), but this is a a matter of different beliefs about government policies, economics, what is good for society, and law.

My question is: if we begin our discussion by affirming the moral ground people on both sides of the debate share, can coalitions can be built to affirm those shared standards even among people with different beliefs about immigration?

Is there a way to appeal to shared morality to navigate this issue?

The Golden Rule

If there is any moral principle which seems to be universal, the golden rule has the best claim to the title. The Hebrew Bible advises to love your neighour as yourself, but also advises us to love the stranger as ourselves— 36 times.

What does it mean to love the stranger as ourself? “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah (Hebrew Bible); the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” So said Rabbi Hillel.

Christianity agrees:

Jesus said, “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

— Matthew 7:12

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

— Luke 6:31

Islam says the same:

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: “O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it.”

The Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!"

— Kitab al-Kafi, Volume 2, Book 1, Chapter 66:10

Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.

— Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)

The Mahabharata, the world’s longest poem and a bedrock of Hindu literature, says:

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.

— Mahabharata 13.113.8

By making dharma your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself

^{Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9}

If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is—that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others.

— Padmapurana, 19/357–358

The Buddha said similar things many times, here’s one of them:

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness.

— Dhammapada 10

Kongfuzi (Confucious) even has a version:

Zi Gong [a disciple of Confucius] asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

—Confucius, Analects XV.24

The golden rule aims to keep us grounded in our common humanity, to see that we are all the same, something I explored in my recent post Evenmindness.

As the Bhagavad-gītā says,"They who see all as equal through comparison with oneself, whether in pleasure or pain, are the highest yogi, O Arjuna." (6.32)

We may disagree about immigration policy. Yet if we ask ourselves how we would want to be treated if suspected of an immigration crime, or if apprehended by immigration agents in a foreign country?

How would we want to be treated in those circumstances? If officers came into our school, or our workplace, or approached us publically on the street? Would we want them to have a warrant? Would we want a fair trial? Would we want to be in a crowded holding cell for days without basic amenities of bedding or food?

My Dad is a lawyer. He often pointed out how different people view the question of how a suspect should be treated depending on who the suspect is. What is the suspect is your own son, he likes to ask? How would you like the police to treat them then, even if he was guilty?

Maybe if we can all agree that suspects should be arrested, tried, and detained in a humane way, we have something to build coalitions around and work from.

Common Ground

I wonder if it would be better for all of us if, when approaching any issue, we first searched for what we agree about. I think there are probably a lot of people who are immigration-suspicious who still do not support ICE’s tactics. If we come at them with placards that say “Open Borders Now! Down With The Police State!” then there is no basis for finding common ground and working together to re-establish the rule of law and decency.

The price of coming together is that at times we need to set aside those things that we disagree about, like larger issues of immigration policy. It’s not that those issues have no moral component— certainly they do— but we need ro recognize that moral people exist on both sides, and their points of view reflect valid concerns and strongly held beliefs. It also doesn’t mean we set aside these things for good. It means that only once we’ve established baseline agreeements do we begin the process not of battle, not of jalpa, but of vada. Starting from a place of respect for diversity, we than look for more truth we can discover together.

Once we have established what we agree about, then hopefully we can discuss as friends, not enemies. We ourselves can still pursue the laws and reforms we think are needed, but we can also firm broader coalitions of people wanting whatever society we live in to be humane and lawful.

The Golden Rule Is Just One Suggestion

The golden rule is just one suggestion. The point it to find something you and the “other side” agree on. For instance, when supporters of Zionism and anti-Zionists could begin by agreeing they both love the Jewish people and want to see them safe. As a Jew who spent a lot of time trying to convince Jewish supporters of the Israeli government to withdraw that support, I think I should have spent a lot more time trying to establish that kind of common ground and finding ways to engage in vada together.

The Other Kind of Common Ground

It’s also helpful to share not just metaphorical common ground but actual solid common ground, i.e. to talk face to face. It’s well established that the internet increases polarization, not just because of bubbles and algorithms, but because we think and speak differently when faced with a real human being. Their emotions, their dignity, their humanity, are all more vivid and we generally take more seriously what they have to say and treat them with more respect. So finding ways to talk to people IRL is a good idea when we can.

Yet even when online, I think that if common ground cannot first be established, there’s little point to the conversation.

Working Together, Living Together

Why is this important? Because we all need to be able to talk together, to work together, to live together. Those on the other side of the ideological divide are not going away. If we approach them with the intent to destroy them, we will not succeeed. If we approach them with the intent to convince them we are right and they are wrong, we will not succeed. What we might actually do, what offers some hope, is the ability to find common ground and build ways to live together despite our differences. This means we have to be willing to see the good in the other, to understand their point of view, and to make compromises.

This doesn’t mean we ourselves don’t have a point of view or an agenda. It means that we are realistic about the need to live with diversity and we focus on establishing common ground and then seeing what seeds can grow there. We probably won’t get everything we want, but it’s better than and endless war between our side and theirs, one which these days seems ever more likely to end in one side gaining enough power to force the other to obey its dictates— at least until the next rebellion.

Fact Checking

One issue that comes up in these discussions is how to know what is true. Based on my experience as a journalist, I’d like to offer some general guidelines:

1. It’s a good idea to read articles on the topic from different, but reputable, sources. Major newspapers have standards and rules about reporting which, though they don’t make them perfect or free of all bias, make them generally reliable. Read across the spectrum from moderate left to moderate right and see what details seem beyond dispute. This is a good list to draw from.

2. Video evidence and eyewitness testimony remain important sources, though you should do a google check to make sure the video hasn’t been established as fraudulent. Here are some resources you can use.

3. Avoid putting your faith in any source which seems to be peddling conspiracy theories, frequently demonizes its opponents, or regularly uses extreme and irresponsible language. Of course that’s a matter of opinion to some extent, but if we’re looking for the truth about contested matters it’s still a good guideline to try to follow.

1. See here: https://antarprayanam.wordpress.com/2024/02/04/vada/