The recent Colorado movie theatre massacre touched a common chord of horror in all of us. However, random events like this stimulate the human need to attribute causality to such outcomes. Invariably the need for a causal linkage and the illusion there is one leads to the ultimate debate between practical and principled responses. The practical approach would be to limit guns that can kill so many so quickly. Yet this approach violates a principle of constitutional liberty where peeps are restricted in bearing arms. The practical approach seems like a reasonable solution to a specific concern but would contradict a broader principle of freedom granted to us by our founding fathers possibly causing harm in other ways to the greater society (same for requirements to provide birth control vs religious freedom). BTW, those advocating tighter control on guns are the same ones who have succeeded in weakening the ability of mental health authorities to commit those that appear as dangerous to protect their civil liberties. That's how confusing this issue is.
The question of practical vs. principled reveals itself quite often in decision-making and has significant consequences. Whether we should opt for a practical solution that conflicts with a broader more complex applied principle sits at the heart of much of our public and private discourse. Stephen Covey wrote extensively of this is his best seller, “Principled Center Leadership.”
The financial crisis was an example of this tension. Should government bailout private firms who would fail otherwise? The practical response was that without doing so there were significant risks that our economy would collapse in the short term. Yet, in doing so the government interfered with the market economy, picking winners and losers. Practical peeps were for the bailouts. Principled peeps were against them believing that while the short term may be more difficult, the markets would better sort out the issues and return quicker and stronger if left to work without interference. After all, the credit crisis was a result of practical leaders believing that all peeps should own a home, whether they could pay for it or not (principle).
On an individual level, Joe Paterno covered for his long time friend Coach Sandusky in the child abuse crimes. While none of us can read Paterno’s mind, it seemed that he opted for the practical response by protecting his colleague and the university with silence, knowing the actions by his friend were wrong (principled). Joe Pa’s statue is down and Penn St is paying a big price for the actions of its leaders.
In looking back at “harmful” events, we seek to make sense of them so we can predict and thereby “dodge” any future occurrence. The question for us, however, is what do we do when faced with such choices? While each event has its own specific issues, I contend that opting for the practical is an ethical issue, really short sighted and “arrogant.” The attraction to the practical path is a manifestation of our quest for knowledge and control. The risk is that we don't trust principle and make the longer term or broader context worse. It is arrogant because it assumes we can figure out causality to what simply may be random, and in doing so predict and maneuver around so that we control events in our lives (these are considered "Black Swan" events, see previous blog). Principled choices recognize that if we trust universal truths (“true north” as Covey calls it) that things will ultimately come out as best they can and if we act against what is true, “the hens will come home to roost” (Covey’s expression for ultimately paying the price of our actions).
Is it possible this is behind many of the issues we face personally and collectively today, such as soaring debt? We see it is practical if we can make the payments knowing that debt is bondage and risky. Is practical oriented decision-making anchored in short term gratification and “epistemic arrogance”? Is our world becoming more and more mediocre because peeps (especially leaders) are more and more practical at the expense of principle?
I not smart enough to know but it’s worth some understanding and pondering ….
Just saying!!
No comments:
Post a Comment