Divided We Stand?

“We the People of the United States. . .”

~
Why Do We the People Always Disagree?
It doesn’t take much to perceive the drastic disagreements among individuals within the
people of modern America. If this central premise of my essay incites any disagreement within
you, good, you have just confirmed its reality that “We the People” are almost always
disagreeing. The evidence in support of this premise is endless considering the direct conflictions
of groups across America such as pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (pro-abortion), socialist
and capitalist, private enterprise and government enterprise, and even menial issues such as the
case for the superior, supreme chicken delicacy. The reality is that America continually argues,
fights, and disagrees upon many actualities. The majority of these actualities, in which we argue
over, tend to be upon the establishment of individual liberties. People are obsessed with the
establishment of individual liberties, their idea of autonomic sovereignty, but why?

Liberty, in my subjective essence at the beginning of my study, was a sense of political activism
where man separates himself from the current government. Thus, my notion predicated that the
way in which man best advances their liberties is through logic and the removal of emotional
reactions that are childish and lead to bickering. I contended that men advance liberties when
they rely on ​reason​ rather than ​passion ​or ​emotion​.

However, when continuing my study I recognized a more psychological flaw that completely set
me back in every measure of my previous intellectual establishments. All my political reasoning,
every logical point that I meticulously lay out before me, every argument that I quickly rebuttal
my opponents with, and every single intellectual capability I choose to pursue are all emotional
reactions. Although I did not realize it, in every political proceeding or argument that I
vehemently profess, I am acting out of passion and emotion. If it were reason (not emotion) that I
acted upon, then I would have been extremely susceptible and open to any theorized political
thought (such as socialism) or ubiquitous approach to morality (such as transgenderism).
Although, I find myself arguing against these ideologies to the point of utter exhaustion, kicking
and screaming like a child who does not desire to lose. Thus, I realized a freeing and important
attribute: man does not reason because he sees it as reasonable, man reasons for passions and
emotional intuitions. I had feared emotional reaction, not realizing that it was an emotional
reaction that most likely stimulated my greatest arguments. I had discovered what psychologists
call the Humean Theory in that “reason alone cannot be a motive to will, but rather is a slave of
the passions”​1 ​which is directly opposed to the platonic (Plato) theory, in that passion is enslaved
to reason. As a result of this discovery, I was able to pose a greater question to myself that
beckoned much deeper and innate answers:

Why are people so passionately diverse towards the same underlying concepts of liberty?

To some, the answer may seem clear to this question. However, when an effort is initially
constructed to fully answer you will find that you begin to quickly group people under general
premises such as religious upbringings, secular worldviews, semi-religious upbringings, etc. You
will discover that this list of generalizations is endless and even after its establishment, you will
find that they contradict each other when discovering, for one example, that religious and
non-religious people share perceptions of liberty that differ from perceptions of their same group.

In this essay, I seek to alleviate the difficulty people have in regards to the growing
disagreements within America. Many times people become frustrated as they see our
government continually in gridlock and the people constantly divided. However, I hope to
convey a new reality that will alleviate the tension people have towards political conversation
and provide a new motive, psychologically and philosophically with evidence, that compels
people to perceive disagreement in the way it was truly designed for humanity. However, before
explaining the widespread disagreements upon liberty, we must first understand what it truly is.
What is Liberty?
It is safe to say that in the United States, the most rudimentary and foundational concept of its
construction has been its continual establishment, enforcement, and invocation of liberty towards
and within the individual. It only takes a brief survey of American history to recognize the
undeniable progress to accomplish this feat. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was
crafted to establish the sovereignty of not only the individual colonies but also the individual
people, in 1791 the Bill of Rights were constructed as shields to liberty and act as a blockade to
extreme infringement of government upon the individuals’ freedom, in 1864 the Emancipation
Proclamation was enacted that not only freed slaves, but further proliferated the reality of
individual liberties throughout the rest of the states, and in the 1960s (and well before then),
movements across the nation arose that not only advocated for individual liberties, but for the
same liberties to be denoted to all people regardless of ethnic, cultural, or racial realities. The
truth is that the United States is marked by its tendency to continually substantiate liberty as a
core value of its many sociological actualities. Although people may struggle at advocating a
satisfactory vehicle to accomplish this aim, it is still acceptable that the general intention of the
American is towards the ideology of liberty.

However, all these events, movements, and revolutions are by no means acceptable definitions of
the true concept of liberty. These are merely externalizations of a much deeper, inward substance
of humanity. In other words, liberty is not birthed within a movement, reformation, or radical
cabal, it is found within the heart and soul of a human being seeking to establish oneself as an
individual. In Second Treatise of Government, John Locke beautifully illustrates this concept
stating that ​“men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can
be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own
consent.”​2

However, many people generalize Locke’s quote, instantly utilizing examples of group efforts
towards liberty while ignoring the reality of individual liberties. Thus, it was individual liberty, I
thought, that truly stimulates the conflicting perspectives. Surely, it is individuals, acting out of
self-interest for the betterment of their own lives that creates the deep chasm we have in modern
politics. Humanity has conflicting opinions because they have conflicting interests. This theory
of Darwinian self-preservation may seem justified when looking at society in only a biological
sense, however, a deeper insight becomes apparent when understanding these two strong
realities. If it were individuals acting out of self-interest to establish liberties, why do the
individuals of societies choose to sacrifice their lives for civilization (such as soldiers)? Why do
people choose to give money to the poor? These things act directly against people’s self-interest
(i.e., losing money or potentially dying). In the novel ​Catch 22, ​Heller perfectly describes this
conflict of self-interest and liberty when he writes:

“All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to
fly more missions [into war]. [Captain] Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he
didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but
if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.”​3

Ultimately, the very idea of fighting for liberty undermines the concept of individuals acting out
of self-interest that creates the general notions we see towards liberty in society. It is clear that
there is a much deeper reality that establishes people’s political, social perspectives towards
liberty. There is a psychological actuality of human beings, one that sets it apart from animal
kingdom and promotes the ideology of individual liberty. This concept, although mentioned very
little in biological science, is the idea of morality.
What is Morality?
When attending a Christian church service during the earlier weeks of the summer months, a
pastor delivering the message to the congregation proclaimed a bold statement regarding
humanity in modern America stating that “in our nation, morality is dying, we are abandoning
the very basic principles of humanity”. This statement made sense considering the current evils
we find in society. Clearly, there is an undeniable sense of perversion and injustice within
America. However, when taking time to reflect upon this statement, I quickly disagreed with the
pastor. If morality is dead, how can we still perceive as a general society that respective actions
of humanity are wrong or right? It’s safe to say that even people who are objectively
non-religious see many actions as unjust in the same way religious people do, yet, some religious
people see some actions as rights that non-religious people see as unjust. Clearly, within
humanity, there is a deeper standard that creates this moral overlap between all human beings
that we see. The reality is that ALL of humanity has a deep sense of right or wrong, better known
as moral law, that explains the innate sense obligation towards different things.

The inner standard of all human beings can be best described in C.S. Lewis’ ​The Abolition of
​ here he objectively writes, “But what is common to [civilizations across history] is
Man w
something that we cannot neglect. It is a doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain
attitudes are true and others are really false”.​4​ He then goes on to give an example of basic
morality that all humanity has “coded” within them, “to call children delightful or old men
venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact...but to recognize a ​quality​ ​which ​demands
a certain response from us whether we make it or not”.​5 ​The reality is that all of humanity is born
with an objective standard or a moral law that determines basic qualities and principles. This
explains the countless basic moral similarities across civilizations such as the natural tendencies
of guilt that children posses regardless of the amount of socialization.

This concept is widely accepted in moral psychology, human biology, and especially within the
Christian faith. However, the widespread argument between the contrasting schools of thought is
the creation of such a moral law that is built within humanity. From a completely atheistic,
biological perspective, it was the plethora of years of evolution by genetic mutations that brought
upon a certain genetic coding that creates certain genes to bring about the unique moral law
found within humanity. To the Christian and countless other faiths (for examples see notes at
bottom), it was the work of an intelligent creator, that coded the genetics that explains the
ubiquitous moral law in human beings. Although, these overlap as many Christians understand
that evolution is science (observations), not a religion and still is compatible with God’s
Scriptures if somewhat proven. However, from the general Christian perspective, which I
confidently assert, it is through God and by Creation ​“the work of the law [moral law] is written
on [our] hearts, while [our] conscience also bears witness, and [our] conflicting thoughts accuse
or even excuse them”​6​. In essence, there is a basic moral law found within all of humanity from
the moment of conception. However, if the same ​moral law​ is found within all humanity,
shouldn't there be an overall agreement upon moral policies within society? If we all are born
with a fundamental moral law, the perspective should all be the same towards objectives such as
abortion, murder charges, or LGBTQ+ policies.

In essence, this is not a reality. Thus, it would seem that the idea of the basic moral law is flawed
and faulty.

However, I as well as many people, misunderstand the concept of the moral law. We perceive
moral law as a set of rules that never change and are set in stone regardless of society. In reality,
this is not the case. The best way to describe moral law is as a blank canvas. This blank canvas
gives structure, meaning, purpose, and establishes rules (found within its pattern) that the paint
must follow and naturally conform to when hitting the canvas. One would not try to place paint
to the left where the canvas doesn’t reach, because doing so simply makes no sense and would be
meaningless. Rather, one paints directly upon the canvas, which is sensical to the rules set before
it. However, each time the paint hits the canvas while following those same sensical, basic rules
found within the canvas itself, it creates a unique mark that is ubiquitous when comparing other
canvases. Ultimately, there are countless masterpieces, some very similar while others different,
however, they all conform to the same rudimentary law of the canvas that lies beneath all the
paint. The moral law is expanded upon and developed, however, basic realities are found beneath
it all. So, what are these basic foundations found across all civilizations since the beginning of
time?​7

In my study, I was grateful to discover that moral psychologists over the past half-century
already had established this through timely comparison and sociological observations.​7​ This is
best known as The Moral Foundations Theory. The basic values include care, fairness, loyalty,
authority, and sanctity.​8​ This chart best explains the sociological externalizations of these values
as well as their counters:
These values are the canvas within my analogy that the paint (humanity) finds itself naturally
building and expanding upon creating the unique aspects of morality that we find in an
individual. Individuals all share this ground that they build upon to establish themselves in
society. How do individuals best establish themselves in society?

It is through groups that individuals establish themselves. In a quick explanation (as this point
deserves another moral psychological documentation in itself), one of the genetic traits and
tendencies that is shared by the concept of the individual is the desire to provide a good
reputation of oneself. Moreover, as mentioned above, people also act off of passions that drive
their subject and method of the reason (Humean philosophy). However, people also have a
genetic make-up to form groups. The doctrine that best explains this is the theory of group
selection​9​ (see reference in sources for sake of length). This same genetic make-up is what
provides the ability to cooperate intellectually and mentally rather than solely responding to
physical actions (as animals do); it also is what creates a language which is not just a word to
describe an object, but a concept that involves the complete agreement and unity of society.
Therefore, in short, a part of ​individualizing ​oneself is also to identify within a group.
In society, groups i​ndividualize​ together and identify with three different types of values that
determine the outlook of actions of society. These values are the paint on the canvas and,
although they may expand far from the moral law, they are surfaced upon that rudimentary
aspect.

The first of these are​ autonomic values​ (choosing to focus on individual rights or individual
freedoms i.e., gay marriage does not harm me or anyone so what can I say about their right),
community values ​(choosing to focus on loyalty in order to advance well-being of kin i.e., gay
marriage divides my family deeply so I will not marry a man), or ​values of the divine​ (an
obligation to the sacred and holiness i.e., gay marriage violates the supernatural order God
destined for humanity).​10​ These fundamental “matrices”, as Professor Haidt describes them in his
book ​The Righteous Mind,​ are what create social groups worldwide. Furthermore, these values
overlap and combine to create new societal groups that aid in the establishment of each
individual. An individual may find himself identifying with groups of autonomic, but also with
groups of the divine. (This is why we see many religious people becoming tolerant of religiously
sinful practices as they begin to identify with values of autonomy, in combination with values of
divinity)

To completely exhaust this aspect of morality in how people socialize themselves to these values
would take books upon books to explain. Maybe one day I will fully seek to explain, although
thankfully, there are countless books that people have written that I have provided in the sources
if the further study should be conducted by a reader.
Relating to Liberty​ - If all is lost read here
With these values in mind as well as the qualities mentioned in the former parts of this essay, I
advise you to think of liberty once more. Liberty can be seen as an aspect of the moral law, it is a
fundamental reality that the soul ought to do; humans are compelled to establish themselves as
individuals in some group throughout all societies​11​. The rudimentary foundation (the canvas) is
that humans seek to establish themselves generally free from oppressive restrictions and
homogeneity through individualizing themselves in a group (as stated above briefly). As Locke
put it, “no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another,
without his own consent”.​2

It is clear that within groupism is an inherent aspect of individualism, furthermore, groups are
predicated upon shared passions and reasonings by individuals (Humean Theory), furthermore,
the passions of these groups are based upon the moral foundations (​care, fairness, loyalty,
authority, and sanctity), and finally, each of these values are applied differently by members of
varying value groups (either a combination of autonomic, community, or divinity).

Thus, with this mind, we can begin to recognize the differences between conservatives and
liberals in their respective views upon liberties. It is now possible to construct a manner of
thinking to provide room for understanding. To exemplify objectively in the demonstrations of
both sides:
- Scenario 1 -
A conservative group seeks the growing number of abortions in the community and is mortified
by the happenings (i.e., Humean Theory, group united and acting upon passion). The group feels
justified because they desire to care for unborn children, some desire for better policies to assure
the mother’s life can continue favorably and better after the birth (i.e., moral foundational value
of CARE for vulnerable, the unborn). Many people within this group are religious as they
believe God creates individuals for a purpose from the moment of conception as demonstrated
historically and scripturally (Group within value group of the divine and thus advocate for the
CARE of babies over the autonomy of individual).

Now, conservatives, hold your horses as I explain the pro-choice (I had a pro-choice advocate
write this).
- Scenario 2 -
A more liberal group is upset with the fact that women are constantly falling behind within the
workforce due to untimely pregnancies. They are frustrated that men can advance quickly and
that people do not understand how long it takes to fully recover from pregnancy and how it holds
back (i.e., Humean Theory, group united and acting upon passion). The group feels justified
because they are helping women who keep falling behind men (i.e., moral foundation of CARE
for the vulnerable, in this case, women who struggle from pregnancies). Many people within this
group are supports of gay as well as transgender individual rights regardless of how other people
feel about it (Group identifies with values of autonomy and thus advocate for FAIRNESS for
individuals rather than other people’s divine convictions).
What does this Mean?
As seen, groups are united in the same way towards liberty, these groups draw their perspectives
upon the same moral foundations, however, the difference lies within the moral value groups.
This is important because, when understood, it teaches people to see that disagreement doesn’t
mean our society is crumbling, rather it proves more than ever that we are opening up
opportunities to grow. It is not that these individuals are not passionate for justice, or that they do
not care, it is that they speak from different sociological perspectives. Although these
disagreements are frustrating, they create the opportunity for us to grow in our worldviews or
even better potentially establish an aspect of our worldview as truth when totally setting it
against all facts and testing it with other’s opinions of the facts.

Therefore, rather than calling out people as evil, unsupportive, or stupid for being pro-choice,
pro-life, pro-socialism, anti-socialism, or conservative or liberal, stop and remember that these
people are passionate, they most likely care, and they are probably just like you because you also
care and are passionate. You also are a human being acting upon your passions, acting upon
moral foundations, and trying to apply yourself to this mysterious and every developing concept
of individual liberties in society. So, seek to converse, get to know your emotional intuitions,
study them, align them with fact, and then after you begin to see your own intuitions, reason with
them and listen in conversation even if it angers you. You might be surprised at what you don’t
know about the other side people have to offer towards the construction and ultimate
establishment of liberties.
References:
1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/
2. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/86945-second-treatise-of-government
​ age 46.
3. Catch 22 - P
​ age 18.
4. The Abolition of Man - P
​ age 19.
5. The Abolition of Man - P
​ omans 2:15
6. Bible English Standard Version - R
​ ages 83-101
7. Abolition of Man - P
8. https://moralfoundations.org/
9. The Righeous Mind​ - Pages 219-247
10. The Righeous Mind - ​Pages 118-124
​ ages 34-44
11. Mere Christianity - P