Narratives, Duty, & Humility
We must always strive to make our aim true. This is not profound wisdom. Yet, if I asked you to give me a nuanced and useful answer, could you provide me with one? And what does it mean to true our aim? How do we do that? I am interested in what this process looks like in the context of the limitations we subject ourselves to. What I mean is how our development is shaped by our constraints, be they blindly adopted ideological narratives or purposely self-imposed limitations. Furthermore, I believe the ability to identify the faults and virtues of those self-imposed limitations indicates whether we aim with a courageous determination to hit the mark or naively convey destructive narratives. I will attempt to explain how self-imposed limitations shape our experiences by demonstrating the contrast between courageously aiming to hit the mark and naively perpetuating harmful narratives.
Before I go any further, I should formulate a question to frame this brief exploratory analysis. It is difficult to detect the reasons behind the messages people convey when those messages are complex, novel, or both. On the one hand, we contend with a force that compels us to speak against the ideologies that bring death and destruction to the world. This has to do with a sense of duty. On the other hand, we contend with the realization that we do not yet have the skills to effectively carry a truthful message. This has to do with a sense of humility. Too far to the side of duty, and we risk becoming overconfident. Too far to the side of humility, and we risk inaction. As you can see, there are two potential errors to commit depending on which side of this spectrum we land on. Perhaps the right question to formulate is “Are the two potential errors asymmetrical and, if so, which is the better error to make?” and “How do we hit the mark while refraining from conveying destructive narratives?” Okay, these are two questions, but it serves the purpose of this blog.
To answer the first part of the first question, we have to explore the implications of each inference error. Is it better to risk overconfidence or inaction? These risks speak to errors of commission and errors of omission. My general stance is that errors of omission are worse than errors of commission. I think part of the reason for that is that there is no responsibility to bear when we omit ourselves from a situation. Therefore, it is easier. But it is also avoidance, and avoidance is deceitful because it is essentially trying to manipulate reality in a way that allows us to bypass the hard work and still get the benefits of life as if we had actually done the work. Sure, we prevent the potential disaster that could come with asserting ourselves with overconfidence (feigned confidence), but we also prevent movement towards something meaningful. And this is guaranteed if we take no action whatsoever.
Of course, there are plenty of dangerous pitfalls that come with errors of commission. In the context of acting on a sense of duty to rail against harmful ideologies, overconfidence can land us in dangerous ideological thinking of our own. In turn, we naively broadcast incomplete truths as if they are all there is to know, at least regarding the topic at that time. The absolutist tones with which we convey our messages then produce false dichotomies, becoming divisive and regressive. This overconfidence cuts us off from the truth that lies outside our beliefs—often in the beliefs that oppose our own. Indeed, we cannot be faulted for trying to do something meaningful. Yet, with the willful adherence to incomplete truths, we risk countering harmful narratives with only another harmful narrative. Do two wrongs make a right?
We see that each error comes with a cost, but are the costs equivalent? In the sense of duty and humility, it is difficult for me to ascertain the symmetry of these errors. My knowledge and experience tell me that the better error to commit is going too far on the side of duty—an error of commission. With this error, although we may miss the mark, we can at least say that we are aiming at something, and to aim is good. The error of going too far on the side of humility is inaction, which is to not aim at all, and that is perhaps most regrettable. However, I’m not sure the degree of asymmetry of these errors is that significant, but I think it’s worth bearing in mind as we embark on the moral undertakings of our lives.
Onto the second question of “How do we hit the mark while refraining from conveying destructive narratives?” I think it is helpful to frame this exploration through the lens of duty and humility discussed above. To hit the mark requires that we aim, and the attempt to do so is rooted in an active sense of duty. We act on our sense of duty by taking a shot, even if there is a chance that we will miss it. To refrain from conveying harmful narratives, we practice humility in the sense that we are able to guard against arrogant and harmful assertions, although we may lack a necessary boldness. We can now see a little more clearly the faults of virtues of both sides of the spectrum. Most people probably default to being closer to one side than the middle. Therefore, it could be the case that identifying where we fall on this spectrum—and learning the rules and nuances of the opposite end of where we fall— will enhance the effectiveness of our contributions to the world.
While it is paramount that we aim at something, it is critical that we do so while diligently guarding against the trap of willful naïvety that can ensnare any of us in a web of ideological thinking. Two important focal points must be routinely inventoried to ensure we hit the mark with a determined aim while refraining from conveying harmful narratives. One point of focus is about taking action and moving towards something meaningful and purposeful. This provides us with the proper orientation that steers us toward contributing to the world with virtue. The other focal point is about the ability to admit our shortcomings and acknowledge our capacity for harm, particularly in ways we least suspect. This provides us with useful insights into how people operate, which can help us deliver messages that are receptive to those who need to hear them.
