I read an interesting question on Stever Robbins’ blog from twitter user @stephenparker.
Is it better to be objective in our decision making, or should our relationships play a role? Is it better to be right or loyal?
Stever gave his answer to the question, but I felt compelled to give my perspective. It took me a few days to get my thoughts together on the subject, but here’s what I formed…
There’s no answer to this question that applies to everyone. The right answer is whatever lets that person sleep at night. Just like a productivity or organizational system, there’s no “one size fits all” solution. As long as the person using the system has confidence in it, it works.
Of course, that answer is a complete cop out, so I’ll try to make it personal. Those are two uncomfortable questions to ask myself, but I can’t improve unless I challenge myself. Is it better for me to be right or loyal?
In a perfect world, these two items aren’t diametrically opposed. In this fantasy land I just referenced, being loyal to one’s relationships is the right thing. We wouldn’t have to ask ourselves the tough questions or make decisions that challenge our values; regrettably, this world doesn’t exist. When found, it’s often short-lived.
I’d like to think I wouldn’t violate my moral principles for the benefit of a relationship. But, what if that relationship was more important to me than morality at that time? What if the relationship delivered more value to me than ethics would have? Suddenly, the world isn’t in black and white as emotion and reason collide.
I’ve regretted betraying my principles for relationships in the past, but I’ve also regretted sacrificing the people in my life for my values. A lot of people can’t even imagine themselves stealing from others, but if the situation was desperate enough, they might. Likewise, when the situation is dire, people may throw away their values to help another person or forfeit a relationship for the sake of their values, quite contradictory to what they thought they’d do in such a situation.
Not too long ago, I had this status message on twitter, facebook, and AIM.
People are the most important things in our lives. Put them above everything else.
At the time, I believed that. Now, with some consideration, I’m wavering. It’s not that I suddenly not value people anymore; honestly, I do. It’s just too easy to say something as absolute as “put them above everything else” without being tested. Values, personal beliefs on what is right and wrong, are just thoughts unless translated into actions. Asking a question like this is an interesting thought exercise, but as you can see from my ranting, I cannot answer it right now. It raises too many questions, too many what ifs without a specific situation to think about.
I hope to find the answer the next time I’m put to the test. When that trial happens, I’ll try to do what will let me sleep at night.
Readers, what do you think? Try answering that question for yourself and post what you come up with in the comments.
Hi, Rick,
I’ve been pondering this question more and more, myself. I also value people very highly. In our culture, though, despite the lip service given to valuing people, people rank pretty low on the totem pole. Business, “the economy,” and money often rank higher, and the environment, international peace, etc. don’t even make it on the charts when you watch people’s actions. (A “Live Green” bumper sticker on your SUV doesn’t count.)
Let’s just consider the case where we agree that people matter most. What about situations where there’s no way to balance the interests of competing groups? How do we decide who wins? Let’s say that people matter more than the economy, so we’re willing to give away our resources to the third world to address the hunger riots currently going on. How much should we give? Who gets to decide?
And now, let’s extend that example through time. If we only have X billion barrels of oil, who chooses how many of those barrels my generation gets, how many barrels your generation gets, and how many barrels (if any) your children get? Right now, consumption is driven by market forces, and market forces only look at today’s production costs. They don’t factor in our children’s need for oil.
So even if people matter most, which people? How do we resolve zero-sum conflicts where one person’s gain is another’s loss? And how do we make decisions taking the interests of the yet-unborn into account?
Tricky stuff. Most of us opt to stop asking and instead we go play on Twitter…
- Stever
This is kind of a cop-out answer, but I really think it’s a situational thing…there are obviously people I hold dearer than others, and the same goes for values.
But if I had to come down on one side, I think it would be people. Being away at college has made me rethink relationships, because they’ve all changed–my friends from Dover are all long distance now, as are my family, and I had the opportunity to form new relationships here, not to mention Amherst’s constant emphasis on networking (kidding! kinda…). Obviously I’d draw the line at, say, torture or rape or murder, but I’m willing to tolerate a lot more now than I would have.
It’s interesting to see where loyalty and morality cross. For example, betrayal is generally viewed as evil.