By John Draeger, SUNY Buffalo State

As the new semester begins, I am again looking out on a classroom full of students eager to discuss “hot button” moral issues (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, hate-speech, same-sex marriage, drug legalization). In an earlier post entitled, “Using metacognition to uncover the substructure of moral issues,” I argued that metacognitive awareness can help students move beyond media pundit drivel and towards a more careful consideration of moral issues. In “Cultivating the habit of constructive discomfort”, I argued that learning requires cultivating a certain healthy discomfort (much like the discomfort often associated with vigorous exercise) and it is metacognitive awareness that keeps us within our own “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky 1978). This post considers some of the sources of discomfort that threaten to undermine the discussion of moral issues.

Confronting “hot button” moral issues can be difficult because each of us brings our own complicated history to the conversation (replete with hang ups and blind spots). Based on my many years of teaching moral philosophy, I offer the following list of items that I found seem to derail discussion. The list is by no means exhaustive and whether these are the elements most likely to impede engagement is ultimately an empirical question that the needs to be answered. However, I argue that all of us (instructors, students, those outside the classroom) need to be aware of our own sources of discomfort with moral matters if we hope to move beyond them and towards a healthy engagement with these important issues.

Sources of discomfort: 

(1) Entrenched beliefs— some moral issues are difficult to consider because they force us to confront our foundational values.  For example, those from a wide variety of religious traditions can find it difficult to be completely open-minded to the possibility that abortion and same-sex marriage could be permissible. While they can summarize a particular position on the issue (e.g., for a particular course assignment), many find it difficult to move beyond a “bookish” articulation of the problem towards a genuine consideration of the issues because it threatens to undermine other firmly held beliefs (e.g., religious teachings).

(2) Peer pressure — many students find it difficult to swim against the current of peer opinion. When discussing sex, for example, students want to avoid being seen as either too prudish or too perverted. Sometimes students have views that fall outside the range of perceived acceptability but they refuse to voice them for fear of social disapproval. Other times, it doesn’t even occur them to consider anything outside the norm. In both cases, peer pressure can undermine full consideration of the issues.

(3) Self-interest — shifts in moral position require changes in our behavior. For example, “buying into” arguments for animal rights might demand that we change our eating habits. Often, it is easy to discount these arguments, not because they lack merit, but because we do not want to make the lifestyle changes that might be required if we became convinced by the argument.

(4) “Afraid of looking in the mirror” — discussions of moral issues can reveal uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Discussions of racial and gender discrimination, for example, can make us uncomfortable when we realize that we (or those we love) have attitudes and behaviors are insensitive and even hurtful.

(5) Ripple effects — because moral issues are interrelated, modifying our view on one issue can send ripple effects through our entire conceptual system.  For example, a discussion of euthanasia might lead us to the conclusion the quality life is important and even that some lives are no longer worth living (e.g., extreme pain without the prospect of relief). If true, then we might come to believe that it be better if some people were never born (e.g., extreme pain without the prospect of relief). Thus, thinking carefully about euthanasia might change our view of abortion. Likewise, becoming convinced by arguments for individual freedom in one area (e.g., free speech) can lead us to rethink our views in other areas (e.g., drug legalization, abortion, hate speech). However, if a student senses that a ripple might turn into a tidal wave, they often disengage.

In each case, becoming aware of the sources for our discomfort can help us move beyond a superficial consideration of the issues. In particular, asking a series of metacognitive questions can help uncover whether the discomfort is healthy (e.g., struggle with unfamiliar or difficult material) or unhealthy (e.g., blocked by entrenched beliefs, peer pressure, self-interest, or an inability to look in the mirror).

Questions we might ask our students (or even ourselves):

• To what extent is my thinking on particular issue being influenced by my firmly held beliefs, the views of my peers, self-interest, a reluctance to take an honest look in the mirror, or concerns about the need revise my entire ethical system?
• Am I taking the moral issue under consideration seriously? Why or why not?
• Would I be willing to change my stance if the argument was compelling? Why or why not?
• Is there something about the view that I cannot bring myself to consider? If so, what?

While awareness of our various blind spots and areas of discomfort will not automatically improve the quality of discussion, it can pave the way for a more meaningful consideration of the issues. As such, metacognitive awareness can facilitate healthy engagement with moral issues.

Reference:

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.