Transcript:

When is it right to be angry? My name is Shaun McMillan and this is the Best Class Ever. 

Recently we asked how can we make a more ideal world together with those who aspire to different ideals? We must do it together so I believe we must get better at listening to those with different ideas, and acknowledge our own tendency to disregard each other’s views.

But just because there are two valid points of views, that doesn’t mean one of them isn’t wrong. As a teacher in America I am often in situations where I must not take sides and remain apolitical or neutral. News journalists are also not supposed to take sides and remain objective.

But It’s not inherently virtuous to remain neutral and not take sides. If one side is wrong, then you should take a side. But only after you have thoroughly listened to the opposing point of view and seen the subject from every point of view. 

I love the story of King Solomon that proved his wisdom. In it you can see that there are two sides, but one is most certainly right, and the other is most certainly wrong.

Then two women who were prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. The one woman said, “Pardon me, my lord: this woman and I live in the same house; and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. And it happened on the third day after I gave birth, that this woman also gave birth to a child, and we were together. There was no stranger with us in the house, only the two of us in the house. Then this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me while your servant was asleep, and she laid him at her breast, and laid her dead son at my breast. When I got up in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was dead! But when I examined him closely in the morning, behold, he was not my son, whom I had borne!” Then the other woman said, “No! For the living one is my son, and the dead one is your son.” But the first woman said, “No! For the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” So they spoke before the king.

Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son who is living, and your son is the dead one’; and the other says, ‘No! For your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.’” And the king said, “Get me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, “Cut the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” But the woman whose child was the living one spoke to the king, for she was deeply stirred over her son, and she said, “Pardon me, my lord! Give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” But the other woman was saying, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; cut him!” Then the king replied, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him. She is his mother.” When all Israel heard about the judgment which the king had handed down, they feared the king, because they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to administer justice.

1 Kings 3:16-28

Don’t just assume that your side is morally superior to the other, but do your due diligence by first learning to appreciate and your opponent’s point of view before you seek to prove it wrong. This way you won’t be surprised in the heat of debate.

Man is By Nature a Political Animal

Aristotle famously said, “Man is by nature a political animal.” But listening to the Harvard lecture series on Shakespeare and Politics I learned that the Greek word for Politics, or Polis might not mean what we think it does. A Polis means the city, or a community relatively about the size of a Greek city like Athens or Sparta back in the golden age of Greece. So the meaning of this famous phrase is something more akin to, “No man is an island,” or like Aristotle also said, “A man without society is either a beast or a god.”

So maybe politics didn’t originally have such a negative connotation. In fact the Roman Republic had such a beautiful system of rewarding and creating powerful leaders, that its politics is to this day greatly admired. Democracy is still considered a positive concept, and has as much reverence as any holy religious word, at least in the way it is taught in western school systems. Really, politics is the science of how to make a more ideal world in a society filled with people who have different ideals. 

3 Stages of Maturity in Political Discourse

My own personal opinion is that we simply need to be a little more mature in our discourse. The first stage of becoming political is both the most sincere, but also the least mature. In the beginning we naively take on one side and rage against some perceived injustice. 

Then we need to reach the second stage of maturity in political discourse which I call research. This is the stage in which you look at two or three different points of view and realize that everything is infinitely more complicated than the stories we are usually told. Things are never as black and white as we are led to believe. Then once you begin to see shades of gray, it’s important to acknowledge that other people’s values, which you might not share, are every bit as nuanced, meaningful, and necessary as your own. We often find we must obliterate our original assumptions. 

This third stage is a level of maturity I would refer to as mutual respect, a stage in which you can acknowledge your own ignorance and really deeply listen to others. You may or may not share their values, but until you can defend your point of view from their perspective, in a way that argues based on their beliefs, you’re never going to win them over. You must see the world through their lenses and learn to speak their language. Win them over with their own values. Then and only then will we be able to express our opinions in a way that doesn’t offend those who really listen to us, or cause us to be offended by their response. 

Size Matters

The size of a community also makes a big difference. Earlier we spoke about the original meaning of the word polis from which we derive politics. I find it interesting to know that the Romans almost never made their forums, the plazas or civic spaces between large buildings greater than the distance at which a human being can recognize another human being’s face. The polis or community loses its value once people become anonymous interactions. 

In today’s globalized internet economy everyone feels pressure to compete for the attention of people they will never meet. How meaningful really are our online interactions if we aren’t really considering each individual as a unique voice. Viewing them simply as statistics seems inhumane. Counting the number of shares, comments, or likes is simply vanity. 

Ideal size for any organized locality

Business researchers have found that when a company grows to over 100 or 150 employees the culture of that organization breaks down. This is the point at which people can no longer look around and remember or recognize all the faces of the people they attend work with everyday. So now many companies are breaking off and expanding to new locations once their organization expands beyond 150 employees. 

So how do we develop positive culture among such large groups of people? How can America, with its population of 330 million citizens, keep its “American” culture? Are we really one group of people, or are we a bunch of smaller groups all fighting with each other? The only way for us to become one is if we can all identify with the same story. But with the news being so divisive in America these days, we can’t even agree on what has really objectively happened anymore. A new Reuters opinion poll found that 52% of Republicans believe that Trump won the election, compared to just 29% who believe Biden won. 

Righteous Indignation

Another very difficult question to ask is, when is it appropriate to get angry at injustice? Even Jesus the Messiah of Christianity and the ultimate archetype of all that is good got angry and publicly denounced the religious leaders of his time period. When he found peddlers trying to make money at the temple he turned the tables of the money changers. Yet no one looks at this as the ultimate immature rage quit. Instead we call it righteous indignation–a justified response of anger at injustice. 

Obviously those benefiting from the status quo are not going to agree with these revolutionary thinkers and will find such self-righteousness to be condescending. So who can judge between these opposing factions? 

We MUST have leaders with good judgement who we can trust. And those leaders need to be bold enough to make decisions and have the leverage to change our institutions that perhaps a large part of their constituents won’t like. These must be men and women of the highest integrity, great character, and people who live and die by principle–not self-interest. If their motives or intentions are questionable then it will be difficult for citizens to make the necessary sacrifices required to keep the peace. 

Are you the Hero or the Villain?

Everyone is the hero of their own story. But even villains believe they are the righteous ones. So how can we know if we are the hero or the villain? Are we the revolutionary or the terrorist? The oppressed protestor or the resentful complainer? Are we good or evil? 

Naive young people often listen to a great story and relate to the hero. But a wise man hears the same story and thinks, “Wow, I really am like the villain for I, like everyone else, share his weaknesses. My case will most certainly be just as tragic if I cannot learn this lesson.” 

Let us avoid stupidity before seeking brilliance.

For notes on today’s lesson or to share your own experience, feel free to visit me at www.BestClassEver.org