Your
political and religious belief system is rooted in fundamental moral drivers
that direct all of your most passionate expressions of right and wrong. One of
the most powerful drivers in humanity is the one that compels us toward care
and averts us from harm. With the possible exception of mentally ill
individuals, every person is motivated by these two opposing factors.
When
innocent children and their teachers are senselessly slaughtered, and the media
exploit the carnage in a massive news feeding frenzy, our moral sensitivities toward
care and averting harm are absolutely affected. Since we are inescapably human,
this violation of our shared moral foundation is nearly absolute. It triggers
an emotional, visceral, and moral response. What differs, however, is the way
we individually interpret care and harm—particularly when it comes to violence
and firearms.
Some
have a moral affinity toward the gun. It is a necessary means of protection
from harm and an essential assurance that care will be provided. Any threat
against the individual, the family, the community, or even the nation can be
duly defended by the possession and responsible use of the firearm. Without it,
one cannot ensure proper care for what is important and one cannot fend off
potential harm.
Others
have a moral aversion to the gun. It is a weapon of death and violence that
threatens care and only causes harm. It was created strictly to kill and has
little or no redemptive value. The world would be safer without it and its
deadly consequences and as long as it is allowed to exist, the world will be a
more harm-filled, less caring place.
These
two powerful moral interpretations quickly (and predictably) rise to the surface
any time there is an unexplainable shooting catastrophe such as last week’s
Sandy Hook School disaster. The debate is powerful and polarizing.
Some people feel a strong moral outrage to take up guns, arm
teachers, place armed guards at the doors of the schools and use the weapon
that promotes care and averts further harm to prevent future carnage.
Some people feel a strong moral outrage to call for stricter
gun control, greatly restricting who can own a weapon, limiting the firepower
and ammunition capacity, and reducing the deadly potential of those weapons
that inhibit care and promote harm so as to prevent future carnage.
The danger is, most people dig their heels in on one side or
the other of this debate, absolutely convinced of their own moral superiority;
and essentially they are right! Each moral argument is superior given the
visceral and basic moral assumptions that are driving the belief system. The
problem is, rather than understanding our shared moral foundations, both sides
are demonizing and ostracizing the other as being immoral.
Rather than arguing who is right and who is wrong (because we
all know that “we” are right and “they” are wrong and that is not going to
change) it is time that we start looking at what is really threatened here. Our
sense of safety has been threatened. As a culture, we were not able to provide
care to those slaughtered in Sandy Hook Elementary. Vicious harm was inflicted
and the only thing we were able to to is watch the incessant news coverage and
wring our hands in shocked disbelief while our moral outrage bubbled up from
inside.
Our common ground is our most basic moral foundations—not the
guns that were used or how society should view them. If we are truly going to
find healing after this tragedy and seek authentic means of eliminating the
potential for future carnage, a debate on gun control will not help. It is time
we have the real conversation—our shared humanity.