I was motivated to write about my philosophy towards other people.
The golden rule
Simply: I don’t get to control what you think. I don’t get to make demands of you. If it is within the law, you are allowed to do that thing if you really want to. I won’t stop you if you’re determined. You are a human with autonomy and reasons for being the way you are.
Will I still have an opinion on you doing certain things? Sure thing. It’s not illegal to think about whether I would do what other people are doing. But you don’t have to ask for permission from me, you live your best free life and I’ll sit over here allowing you to do that.
I grade people primarily on one axis only: whether they treat others as humans or not. I want to live in a world where we see the humanity in each other.
Why this is my rule
I’m a highly non-prescriptive person in general. I don’t want to be involved in what people around me do in their private lives or their private time, unless we agree to be involved in something. If all parties are consenting, it’s not my business, and I don’t feel inclined to know. That’s one reason.
But more broadly - I understand that we have a process for outlining things that shouldn’t be done, and that process is democracy. If I wanted to stop people from doing something because I was concerned about its impact, that’s the path I would pursue.
Systemic problems demand systemic solutions, not individual ones. The idea that a society of individual choices are responsible for the world’s largest problems isn’t sound to me; governments are bottlenecks through which all legal behaviour must pass. It’s the clear place to target when trying to solve problems, especially ones where responsibility is amorphous and hard to pin down. Make it blameless instead - institute a system that outlines what shouldn’t be done. If you fail to do that, then find out how to do it next time.
I ultimately think the behaviour of individuals should be driven by what they think they should do, not what they’re told to do by others. If I want to reduce the amount of meat in my diet, that’s wonderful and I should go do that. But there’s no logical reason why it’s the solution to a systemic problem; people don’t work like that.
So, if I want others to eat less meat, I can offer a recommendation or a reason, but if they say no, then that’s their choice and it would be improper to override it. It would be especially improper to treat them badly over it, publicly shame them, make people feel bad for associating with them… you get the idea.
It’s almost always the case that there’s a reason people are compelled to be a certain way. Their reasoning may not be sound or rational, but people don’t generally get out of bed in the morning to make the world a more miserable place. I often say that there’s a nugget of truth in every opinion, you just have to work through the dressing to find it.
This generally leads towards my big idea of how we should make change in the world. It’s not by dictating to others what is good for them, regardless of how obvious I think it is. It is instead by listening first, understanding what they think and believe, identifying those nuggets of truth, and figuring out where to go from there. That’s how you build a base around an idea and transform that into change.
That’s true even of the people I disagree with the most vigorously today. I don’t begrudge anyone, because people are complex mosaics of attributes, not single dimensional beings.
Why I’m concerned
It feels like a fair few people don’t do this anymore because they don’t believe in these ideas anymore. It’s mistaken for ideas that aren’t helpful, like centrism or conformism. I think that’s a dying shame that the difference isn’t known better.
It often feels like people demand others to do things for them, or be cast out. Believe in the same ideas we do. Conform to what we tell you to do. They attend gatherings where important speakers present romantic visions of a world where dissent is quieted. To some small extent, perhaps they even pride themselves on how they treat some others badly.
That’s not a phenomenon that’s boxed into a certain sect of society, by the way. There’s endless talks about extremes on a spectrum, but society is far more higher-dimensional than that. It’s not about simple politics or social causes, it runs deep into even the most niche topics where there isn’t unanimity. I’ve seen it in enthusiast spaces where the stakes are supposedly zero.
We have forgotten how to talk about our significant differences in any space on any topic. The moment I realised this, I saw it everywhere. It changed the way I view the world.
What I’m doing
As you may have seen, I’m not on social media, except for YouTube. I don’t think I need to explain how it relates to this concept; it’s far too easy for people to walk in the door and shit on your plate. I don’t want to be part of the global town square if that’s what’s on offer.
I much prefer tighter, closer connection. When I get to know you, and we become friends, and we do more things together, I think that motivates people to place more of a value on humanity. When my friends come out with things I can’t accept, being close to them places a cost on rejection and encourages me towards listening. The same logic works when my friends disagree with me, too.
In general, this has made my life much more pleasant. By taking this stance, I haven’t compromised on how I think about the world at all. Instead, the opposite has happened: I feel like I have more conviction in my view of the world, as I understand more about the other people who live in it. I’ve become softer and less demanding of others, and it’s brought me closer to a lot of people in my life.
It feels like it’s been a long road of personal development to understand this. There was a time where I was insufferable and made myself miserable for no reason.
Writing this is a bit like documenting what I’ve learned since then, I suppose. It turns out life can be sunnier if you find the humanity in others. It’s not hard, you just have to believe a little.