Anytime there are conflicting human needs in which a course of action benefits one group and hurts another, and one party dismisses the other with, “it’s not just about you,” or “don’t be selfish,” THAT side is being selfish. They are trying to win a power struggle by silencing the other party in order to get their needs met at another’s expense, while simultaneously hiding behind a false veil of moral superiority by labeling the other side as the villain (“selfish”).
There are many ways of responding more productively than by dismissively accusing someone of being “selfish.” Examples:
- “Tell me more about ___.”
- “I’m having a hard time understanding why you think ___ is more important than ___. What am I not understanding, as you see it?”
- Or just listening until they feel understood and are ready to listen to you.
The only way the most ethical course of action can be determined in a family or a society, is an open and honest conversation of ALL costs and benefits, to ALL parties involved. Costs and benefits come in many forms that can affect duration AND quality of life. Benefit-only analyses and cost-only analyses leave entire groups damaged and voiceless. They only include half of reality – a half that supports an agenda to satisfy the needs of some and omit the needs of others. Therefore, any statement that aims to silence or minimize another person’s concern is a strong move away from justice.
The other requirement for truly ethical action is a recognition we are hardwired to put others’ needs below our own, and fight against this. Self-serving bias, selective attention, confirmation bias, the fundamental attribution error, and other “brain bugs” all allow us to subconsciously manipulate limited information we have to support agendas that the favor ourselves and our “tribe,” AND leave us with a false sense that we analyzed objectively and chose our position righteously.
We should vigilantly and mindfully evaluate every need neutrally, as if we were totally outside of the system, regardless of whether the need in question belongs to us, or to someone in our tribe. Each concern of each person should be considered not by asking ourselves, “how would I feel about that?” but by asking “how do THEY feel about that?” and assigning importance “weight” to each need as they would if they had the body and mind of the other person.
Of course, that can’t actually happen because we never know what it’s like to inhabit the body and mind of anyone other than ourselves. But with that recognition that morality is not simple or cut-and-dry, at least we can slow down and put in the effort to allow the concerns and needs of all people to be heard thoroughly, and try to imagine their pain in their circumstances, rather than deceiving ourselves that our silencing and shaming of the other side serves the greater good, when we’re in fact using that as a rationalization to justify grabbing power to get what we want at others’ expense.