When made to choose, which is preferable?
A friend once asked: should I choose to be right, or to keep the peace?
My friend’s in a quandary: to not tolerate the indiscretions of her husband, or to maintain the peace between her and him?
This seems, sadly, a not so uncommon marital tale. But this goes beyond marriages. It’s a predicament we face every day. We’re confronted with the choice of keeping to what we believe is right, or to compromise in order to stay in the good side of a friend or of a person we seek to curry good favors. Or choose to stay true to a view, a value, a virtue, or to a moral stand or a faith, at the possible expense of a reputation or repudiation by
One way or another, to stand by what one sees right or true could be costly. It’s costlier if a sense of right or of a truth has not been responsibly and sensibly put together so that they would prove utterly wrong. One ends up a fool and it could also cost others who choose to agree with you.
My take: It’s probably best to assume that one’s sense of right or truth could stand correction. Facts do get mis-appreciated and conclusions based on data and numbers could have been wrongly deduced. This does not mean, however, that in the face of opposing contentions, one must readily give up on a sense of right or wrong because one must as well be ready to stand by a truth if unconvinced of countering claims.
In my view, being right or holding to a truth requires virtue. It requires the humility to being possibly wrong and so, too, the readiness to correct a mistake. But it also requires the fortitude to keep to a sense of right and truth if, after hearing others with open mind, one remains unconvinced of being wrong.
Virtuously keeping to a sense of right and truth involves refraining from diminishing or destroying those who happen to disagree with you. It means keeping a calm – even welcoming – attitude toward those whose senses of right and truth differ from yours. It requires the capacity to respect those who disagree with you, to the extent of being willing to think through their disagreements and to be ready to be corrected if you find the disagreements to be valid and right.
I see it right to not be shy in advancing and stating your sense of right and truth if it is to enrich public narratives and discourse that could only add to the wealth of society’s capacity to think. But I see it as not right to assault the person and integrity of those who don’t share your views. It’d be wrong to feel wronged and despise those who don’t share your views.
My further take: a virtuous conduct of disagreements fuels progress in a democracy. Disagreeable deportments over disagreements leads democracy (and society) to tailspin into self-destruction. This is true on matters of human opinions and on matters involving dearly held beliefs and faiths.
Failure of virtue over disagreements creates discord, even terror and violence, and un-peace. Tranquility is riled and disturbed when among those who disagree, either one or the other possesses deficits of virtue, and worse, if both do.
Disagreements need not lead to discord if disagreements are not conducted disagreeably. Virtuous disagreements might actually lead to a higher level of peace. – NWI
