Caring for others is a reasonably universal characteristic of humans, because after all, society requires cooperation in order to exist beyond the present. Granted, cooperation among peoples is not always present, because famine, wars, and genocide exist throughout history in hundreds of instances. However, forcing people to care about each other is an entirely different story. Not only is this unrealistic, it’s impossible.
The political left tries to guilt those opposing them into caring about all sorts of people groups by way of identity instead of policy. As one example, many on the left will prop up victims of recent school shootings as a way to push for gun control, claiming that anyone who offers a different perspective doesn’t care about the victims or their families. Similarly, the left tries to persuade whites that they owe blacks something in the present day for past evils, even though you cannot correct historical wrongs with present rights. All of this is done to try to force people to act and speak certain ways, even though this is an ineffective way to help people engage with crucial topics. This article breaks down three ways that not caring too much about your perspective is the best way to care for others.
Allow Opposing Perspectives To Be As Free As Your Own
Diving deeper into the gun control example, pundits such as Jimmy Kimmel and Piers Morgan have pushed for gun control on the basis that something must be done in the wake of sheer terror. While I agree that inaction is inadequate, I am reminded of Ilya Somin’s thoughts on matters of gun control and public policy. As a professor of law at George Mason University, Somin writes that “much of the public … forms opinions without serious consideration of the evidence.”
What this means is that most people allow their minds to be shaped by sensationalism (and usually their existing party bias) immediately following an act of severe tragedy. Unfortunately, this makes for poor policy recommendations, because tragic events are almost always one-offs that exist within a rare set of circumstances. In his famous interview with Ben Shapiro, Piers Morgan was quick to point out that the Sandy Hook shooting involved an assault weapon. Morgan claimed that certain guns should be banned due to the severity of the violence committed in this instance, and the fact it happened to children.
Shapiro was equally quick to counter that the vast majority of murders in the United States do not happen with assault weapons but with handguns, which is backed up by multiple sources. Morgan was unwilling to consider Shapiro’s point because he was overly concerned with opposing the gun used to perpetrate violence, despite data about guns that show assault rifles are rarely used.
It’s clear that no one wants anyone to die through gun violence, so it’s equally important that those who value policy reform be willing and able to calmly discuss differences in outlook, despite how uncomfortable such conversations may be. As professor Somin also states, “anger and sorrow are not substitutes for knowledge.”
So, to help care for people in general, allow differences in perspective to cross paths with your own. Sitting down and listening – even if you still disagree at the end – is a great way to learn information you may have previously ignored. It’s hard to listen to dissenters, but they have the same right to share their thoughts as you do. And a society where we can listen to one another is a healthy one indeed.
Support The Idea Of People Voluntarily Coming Together
Voluntary interactions exist between diverse peoples every day. As a black female, perhaps you work with more white people than black, but spend free time with black friends. Or, perhaps as a white male, your boss is also white, but your closest friend is Hispanic. When individuals have the freedom to make choices as they see fit, they are more likely to engage diversely in everyday contexts.
Organizations have incentives to promote diversity in the workplace, for selfish and unselfish reasons. Selfishly because hiring with diversity in mind prevents the likelihood of a discrimination lawsuit, and unselfishly because an entire organization wins when people of different backgrounds get to work together.
Some businesses have been slammed with massive discrimination lawsuits, causing them and others to attempt forced diversity training to eliminate future risk. Unfortunately, forcing diversity in the workplace usually backfires, because people despise being told what to do.
The moral of the story is not that people of different ethnicities can’t learn to work and live together. It’s that forcing people to care about each other disrespects the freedom individuals have to make their own choices. Allowing people to be free, even if that differs from how you would behave, is the best way to foster mutual respect.
Take Personal Economic Responsibility
Perhaps the most pernicious notion on the left is the concept of equality: that the haves should be forced to give to the have-nots. A few examples are taking money from the rich and redistributing to the poor, and programs such as Affirmative Action that require employers to meet hiring quotas based on class protections.
While “leveling the playing field” sounds good on paper, it doesn’t manifest well in real life. Whenever I consider equality, I think of a widely-shared comic strip. There are three friends who want to peer over a fence to see a sporting event. The three friends happen to be of significantly different heights, but they all need additional support to see over the fence.
If you were to give them all ladders of equal height, one of the friends would have more than he needed, one friend’s ladder would be just right, while the third friend’s ladder still isn’t enough. Even though you provided each individual with equal resources, it didn’t translate to appropriate results. However, if each person obtains the ladder that’s appropriate for his or her height, each friend can see over the fence, and there is no surplus or shortage in resources.
Similarly, caring for minority groups through Affirmative Action may actually be hurting them, as peers of a new hire may assume they are underqualified and respect their work less. To the same end, an individual who is white but happens to be more highly qualified than a black person can be unfairly passed over, just because they aren’t in a protected class.
This is all troublesome because it’s the wrong way to care. Since you cannot redress historical wrongs with present actions, the appropriate answer is to select employees for their individual merits, not because their ancestors were oppressed. This may be “politically incorrect” but it’s ethically sound and logical.
The left often thinks that just by redistributing large sums of money that already exist, people will know how to use it and all will become better in the world. This ill-conceived fantasy stands in stark contrast to the stories of lottery winners, who often end up going broke or even committing suicide after winning, because they have no idea how to manage such a large sum. Even if we took Bill Gates’ net worth of $80 billion and redistributed it to the poorest 15 percent of Americans, they would only receive a one-time payment of $1,736.
Would we want a world full of LeBron Jameses, or Neil deGrasse Tysons? Probably not, as some people were built for basketball and others were built for astrophysics. If everyone was an athlete, we would have a lot of trouble optimizing scientific discovery. Likewise, if everyone was a researcher, there would be few entertainment selections in our free time.
The reason we can easily reach this conclusion is because celebrating diversity of the individual is something that most people can resonate with. If you tried to build an orchestra purely of trumpets, as triumphal as it may sound at first, the music would be severely lacking in depth. We don’t expect art to be one-dimensional; we shouldn’t expect the world to be, either.
The facts paint a clear picture: forcing others into the same box of your own perspective doesn’t build a better world. It usually causes tension and division between people, not clarity and cohesion. When the urge to immediately press your views on another arises, take a step back and listen to them first – you’re more likely to learn something.
