As we approach the festive time of year, discussions around morality often surface, whether influenced by Santa Claus or religious teachings. Both figures represent the concept of judging behavior as either "naughty" or "nice." Let’s dive into four distinct ways to approach morality and examine which perspective aligns with Santa or Jesus—or at least which one you think they might prefer.
Option 1: Absolute Right and Wrong
In this view, certain behaviors are inherently good or bad, as dictated by a higher authority. Labels like "good" and "bad" are absolute and unchanging.
Example:
“You lied. Lying is always wrong. God, Jesus, and Santa agree with me.”
Option 2: Intuitive Morality
This approach assumes that we instinctively know what is right or wrong. Gut feelings determine morality, with no need for deeper reasoning.
Example:
“You lied. I just know lying is bad. My instincts are never wrong.”
Option 3: Situational Morality with Certainty
Here, morality depends on the context. A single action can have different interpretations, but some people are convinced their perspective is always correct.
Example:
“There’s lying, which is harmful withholding of information, and then there’s tact, which is thoughtful withholding. I know what you did was lying because I can always tell. When I withhold information, it’s tactful. When you do it, it’s lying.”
Option 4: Situational Morality with Uncertainty
This approach acknowledges that behavior can be good or bad depending on the situation, but it leaves room for debate and disagreement.
Example:
“You withheld information, and it upset me. Was it lying or tact? We might not agree, but we can discuss or even agree to disagree.”
Why the First Three Are Easy but Flawed
The first three approaches are the most common and straightforward, yet they often lead to hypocrisy. They encourage labeling actions as "good" when we do them and "bad" when others do. By oversimplifying morality, we often complicate life. For years, I’ve advocated for the fourth approach, which I find to be the most reasonable, honest, and practical.
The Problem with Oversimplification
Take the example of withholding information. Some view all withholding as lying and therefore wrong. But in reality, we all withhold information for various reasons sometimes to protect ourselves, others, or even society as a whole.
For instance:
- You can show respect by withholding your true opinion to avoid conflict.
- Conversely, you can show respect by being honest, even if your opinion might upset someone.
Understanding Morality Through Language
To better navigate these complexities, let’s explore three ways to describe any behavior:
1. Neutral Terms
2. Negative Terms
3. Positive Terms
Here are some examples:
Neutral: "Spending time with others."
Negative: "You’re too dependent and clingy."
Positive: "I’m loyal and committed."
Neutral: "Changing your opinion."
Negative: "You’re unsure and lack confidence."
Positive: "I’m flexible and open to new ideas."
Neutral: "Sticking to your views."
Negative: "You’re stubborn and unwilling to change."
Positive: "I’m firm and dedicated."
Neutral: Sticking to a belief.
Negative: "You’re hard to work with and unwilling to change."
Positive: "I’m reliable and committed."
What Drives Dishonest Behavior?
Even dishonesty can be framed in different ways:
Neutral: Being accommodating.
Negative: "You avoid problems and find it hard to deal with conflicts."
Positive: "I’m compassionate and considerate."
Neutral: "Lacking adaptability."
Negative: "You focus only on yourself and behave unkindly."
Positive: "I’m confident and expressing my needs clearly."
The Power of Interpretation
These examples highlight how language shapes our moral judgments. We often bundle terms into what I call “spinplexes,” which are combinations of words that reinforce a particular interpretation. For instance, pairing “kind” with “loving” creates a positive spin, while pairing “selfish” with “mean” creates a negative one.
Santa, Jesus, and Moral Complexity
Most people default to the first three approaches when thinking about Santa and Jesus. But I often wonder: Did Jesus accommodate everyone all the time, or just the right people in the right ways? Many are surprised by this question, as they’ve never considered it. While kindness is often touted as a core value, no one accommodates everyone all the time and perhaps they shouldn’t.
A Holiday Wish for Deeper Thinking
This holiday season, I wish more people viewed Jesus and Santa as symbols of moral exploration rather than simple figures of good and evil. Both are excellent tools for teaching children basic morality distinguishing between “naughty” and “nice.” But as adults, we must grapple with the complexities of human behavior.
Morality is rarely black and white. Every action can be judged differently depending on the situation, and understanding this nuance is what makes us truly wise.