Perceiving ill intention in others

The fact that this debate is deeply embedded in morality means each side sees their own position as self-evident. This makes it easy to dismiss the other side’s combination of views as logically incoherent. However, this perceived logical incoherence is a product of viewing their position within our terms, not theirs. 

And since the clash of rights at hand is quite literally life and death, it’s easy to assign evil intentions to those we disagree with. Very rarely are those intentions actually malevolent. When we live in a pluralistic society of culturally diverse peoples, each of us will have a different gut reaction as to which right is more fundamental in each scenario. This difference in views is certainly a conflict of moral frameworks, but is not a product of our being “good” and others being “evil.” 

In fact, this conflict is good versus good. The left isn’t trying to genocide innocent children, they are trying to protect women — particularly impoverished women — from the financial and emotional burdens of unplanned pregnancy. And the right isn’t trying to selfishly promote the spread of disease, they value an individual’s right to decide for themselves whether this new technology is safe.

Considering, even for a moment, how another rational, moral person can come to an entirely different conclusion on these issues is important for maintaining a peaceful society. The other side are not monsters for their alternative calculations of estimated risk numbers, nor are they monsters for coming to a different conclusion on the long-debated question of when life begins.

Of course, they may be wrong. And if their side’s position wins there may indeed be devastating consequences. But we won’t be able to speak intelligently or make progress on these critical topics if we assume the other side’s position is a product of evil, ignorance, brainwashing, or stupidity. 

Examining our own intentions and ensuring that our actions are in line with them, rather than constantly questioning the intentions and actions of others, is much more likely to move society closer to truth and goodness — whatever that may look like.

That’s why, especially in debates around the sanctity of human life, it’s critical we begin by recognizing the humanity of those we disagree with. 

What do you think? Give us feedback by emailing info@narrativesproject.com.

If you’re enjoying our analyses, follow us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook for more.

Notes: 

1. This piece is not speaking to the merits of choosing to get vaccinated, but focuses on vaccine requirements. This debate is more parallel to the conversation around banning abortions in that it’s a question of using state force.
2. The plurality of Americans don’t have a cut-and-dry opinion on abortion. According to a 2020 Gallup poll, 50% believe abortion should be legal in some, but not all circumstances. Our classifications of right and left characterize the 20% who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and the 27% who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Of those groups, there is certainly diversity in views around COVID vaccine requirements. The purpose of characterizing and unpacking the “standard” views ascribed to each side is to demonstrate that our contra-partisans do not hold their views to spite us, but in good faith and intent.
3. We’re not here to answer the question of whether a fetus is human — that’s up to you to decide. But notice that if your answer changes given which term is used, that means you find the other side’s logic to be, at the very least, internally valid.
4. When we read those viewpoints, we do so with our perceived risk around vaccination or abortion in mind. It’s important to remember that even if we could agree about the expected risk for each topic, there is still room to reasonably and passionately disagree about what those numbers mean in terms of policy.