Point of View, or Physics and Morality and a meandering journey

If you know me, you probably know that I have a degree in physics. While I've never actually worked in a scientific field, my background in physics plays a large role in my views in the world. Science teaches us that nothing we think we know about the material world is certain. Time and time again, humanity's view of the world is tipped on its head.

For millennia, much of humanity believed the Earth to be the unmoving center of the universe. Aristotle believed that a force had to be continuously applied to an object to keep in motion. These ideas are intuitive. We can't feel the earth's motion, and a constant force does need to be applied to keep an object in motion on Earth (thanks to friction and drag).

Then Copernicus came along and made the outrageous claim that the earth revolves around the sun. But this made no sense. If an object is dropped from a height, it drops straight down. If the earth is moving, the object should land some distance away from where it was dropped, equal to the distance the earth moved while the object was in the air. Galileo realized this problem could be fixed by introducing the concept of what we now call inertia - an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Now we have two self-consistent systems, both of which explained the observed phenomena. If you read the title of my post, at this point, you might be wondering what this has to do with morality.

As usual, I'm talking about uncertainty.  I want to draw parallels between the uncertainty of science and the moral uncertainty I believe is necessary in a democratic society. Much of what we believe about morality is based on assumptions we're not always aware we're making. These assumptions can result in widely conflicting views, yet each view can explain what we observe in the world.

This is why it is so difficult to argue with people whose views conflict with yours. These conflicts often originate from assumptions that are not up for debate because we're not even aware of them.

The best way to change other people's minds is to understand the assumptions they are making, and construct an argument from their own point of view that points out a contradiction in their way of thinking. This requires empathy. You may have seen me use this word before. I'm going to keep using it.

For instance, I assume all people are created equal. But there are clearly, and in larger numbers than I previously wanted to admit, many people who do not make that assumption. I can look at any underprivileged group and find evidence that they are being oppressed. Women make less money than men. African-Americans are far more likely to go to jail than whites. Yet someone else can look at that same evidence and have it confirm their assumption that those group of people are simply inferior. So I can't point to this evidence and expect anyone to change their mind.

However, only one of these assumptions is compatible with democracy - and by extension, with being an American. The idea of America has always been more progressive than its people. I find it curious that those who make the most prominent displays of patriotism are often those who stand against what America stands for. I think those of us who actually believe in liberty and equality need to reclaim those symbols of our country that, despite our history, are supposed to stand for those principles.

The strength of America should be our diversity. We welcome people and ideas from all around the world. This includes all religions. Thomas Jefferson, on passing Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."