The following excerpt comes from the 2017 Benjamin Eby Lecture “When Good Intentions are not Enough: Confronting Ethical Challenges in Peacebuilding and Reconciliation,” given by PACS Professor Reina Neufeldt on October 26, 2017. In the talk, Reina explored how moral values can play a problematic role in peacebuilding. She identified four sometimes surprising ways in which moral values themselves contribute to failure, and argued that careful exploration of, and attention to, values is necessary for peacebuilding to be transformative. Reina then provided three responses to rethink how we engage with moral values in order to be part of constructive peacebuilding, and their implications for contemporary reconciliation efforts in Canada. The lecture drew on content from her book Ethics for Peacebuilders: A Practical Guide (Rowman & Littlefield).
The problem of thinking we know what’s right
One way moral values contribute to failure is when we think we know what is right and act upon our assumptions without deliberation. This can happen individually or as groups.
The personal variant of this failure is commonly called dogmatism. American philosopher and educator Anthony Weston (2013) speaks of dogmatism as one of three common substitutes or counterfeits for ethical thinking (the other two being relativism and rationalization). Dogmatists already know the answer to a question before it is raised. They cut off open and careful consideration of moral issues because they know what is right, regardless of the specific case or circumstances. Arguments then are simply attacks on another person or position regardless of what else might be morally salient.
The 1990s phrase “Talk to the hand, because the ears aren’t listening,” popularized by actor and comedian Martin Lawrence, comes to mind to capture this problem.
We have dogmatists in peacebuilding as in other areas. For example, those so committed to nonviolence that they do not engage with difficult counter-arguments about the use of force. This is one of those values that I defended dogmatically early in my career. A Serbian colleague, during an intense debate, exhorted me: “Why are you people so committed to nonviolence?” He thought my dogmatic commitment was blinding. And, having lived through war and dogmatisms run amok, he had some insights that I did not yet possess.
When we agree with the values that dogmatists hold, we want to broadcast them—maybe retweet them—and when we disagree we think they should be silenced, their twitter accounts shut down. In both situations, merely clinging to values without careful and open-ended thinking involves giving answers before we grasp the questions.
The second version of this problem manifests itself in faulty group decision-making processes. Irving Janis, a social psychologist, named this problem “groupthink “(1972). There are a variety of conditions that make this dynamic likely to occur. What happens is team members value unanimous agreement and group cohesiveness over open and reasoned debate or problem-solving. The group ignores contradictory information, becomes over-confident, and believes itself inherently moral. Outside opinions and groups are stereotyped, and even dehumanized. The decisions that result are irrational and morally problematic. This can particularly be a problem when people are located in a head office, making decisions under pressure and insulated from field complexities.
Here again, the conviction that we know what is right is blinding.
