8.0.3.4 Real Divergences of Values

Version 1.2 December 2016                          (Previous Version)

We know that some people choose different values that are of concern to us.  Such people either:

●  hold false beliefs and make potentially harmful choices based on these, and:

o   they are so confident of their position that they ignore reason and the evidence, and/or

o   they are committed to acting upon their beliefs and values, ie intend to cause harm;

●  Or they hold similar beliefs about the world to ours, in philosophy, science and history, and even perhaps in some religious matters, but make substantially different choices, perhaps because:

o   some past experience leads them to be out of touch with reality, distrustful of the truth, intolerant, remote from this life, loveless and unloving, irresponsible or self centred;

o   they deny the need to be rational with respect to their value choices;

o   their genetic make up causes them to simply not care about others, i.e. they are psychopaths.

●  Or some combination of these options. 

If these people fail to act on their choices then we may have less cause for alarm – except we will be concerned that they may later start to act on them.  Our major concern is about those who may act on their choices and cause suffering.  Our response to these people is based on:

●  self preservation – of our own lives and those of our loved ones and communities;

●  their responsibility for their views (tempered by our compassion and our uncertainty);

●  a realistic assessment of the actual likelihood that they will cause harm or have already done so.

These are essentially coercive responses, led by intelligence and enforcement agencies such as the police.  History shows targeted police actions governed by the rule of law are more likely to contain bad behaviour than the indiscriminate violence which is characteristic of war. 

Warfare historically leads to more hatred, perpetuates violence, and does more harm than good.  Arbitrary detention and assassination, oppression and torture are known to fuel violent responses.  Action led by religious or racial profiling and inconsistent with good law does more harm than good.  Indiscriminate violence causes people who might not otherwise be militant to become so.

Similarly, history shows revenge, vendettas and harsh punishments also lead to more resentment and ongoing violence, whereas punishment seen as fair can be endured without rancour.  The self-control required to refrain from excessively punitive responses to wrongdoing is difficult to maintain, but that control is part of our struggle.  It can also be seen as weakness, which we must counter with escalation procedures, consistently applied, so that this perception doesn’t endure.

To change false beliefs we can appeal to reason and the evidence, and provide support to these who have suffered emotionally crippling trauma, but often emotional experiences are required to gain insight.  We must continue to conduct ourselves honourably – without hypocrisy, consistently with our stated values – hoping that by our example fewer people will be led astray.  We can expect that a firm, predictable, legal response to wrong doing will encourage some – uncertain rebels and intelligent psychopaths – to desist, if only because it is their enlightened self interest to do so.

The real basis for our hope is that the percentage of people who actively oppose our core values is small.  Our struggle is limited in scope and with persistent, intelligent promotion we will win.