On abortion and moral intuition
Niklas Wilkens
Just yesterday I finished listening to the 10-CD interview with Ken Wilber, called "Kosmic Consciousness" for the, I guess, fourth time. Since the last time I listened to it, I must have had some changes in my thinking and my sense of self, because I noticed how I was able to receive Ken's thinking and expression much more as that of a fellow human being, wondering about the world as I do, rather than a master who has access to spheres of being that I never can tap into. I really enjoy that and it's much more fun that way.
I want to take some thoughts from there to illustrate the points I want to make.
Considering abortion, what comes into play is the question of how to judge relative value, because we are asking the question of what is more important, the life of the fetus or the possible suffering in the life of the mother. I suppose especially for people thinking pluralistically (which many people in the NVC community do) this is a topic that is avoided whenever possible, because we want to include everybody and it's experienced as extremely painful to even consider this problem. Still, whenever I come up with the tenet that needs are never in conflict, apart from the abortion problem, people like to confront me with the life-boat question: There are four people in the boat, the boat is so deep in the water, that water is starting to swap in, who is going to go? Now creative people might say "Nobody, because we take turns in swimming by the boat." but I have to be careful here, otherwise I demolish my argument and my point is not even made ;-)
So who has to go, if relative resources are scarce and it seems that a decision has to be made between losing everything and losing a bit /winning a bit? I found it helpful to hear about Wilber's distinguishing at least two kinds of value every holon (whole/part) can have, that is also every person.
Ground value is what we all have equally and that is the value of being alive or being there in itself. It's the beauty that we encounter, when we dig the gold out behind the strategies and thoughts of any person or sentient being. When we are in touch with the possiblities of life that are innate in the needs, we are in touch with the ground value.
Relative value has to do with depth and awareness, or in other words: What kind of strategies are already available and developed in your awareness? I assume we all agree on how much time it takes to develop NVC consciousness and everything that goes with it. I also suppose we agree that there are in general different skill-sets, different lines of development, be it cognitive, emotional, self-awareness, kinaesthetic, musical, cooking, organizing, interpersonal, sexual, value-priorities and so on. And if there are lines of development of strategies, there are also stages or levels of development. So, whatever scale I use, I come to the conclusion, that relative value can be discerned in terms of depth or height (whatever image you use) on these lines of development.
So we seem to decide according to the relative value we see in other people. For example, I'm getting aware about how I want to select my friends and the people I spend time with. And I do that according to relative value. When it's coming to questions like "Who do I want to work with?" or "What organization do I want to join?" or "What partner do I want to spend time with?"
Wilber uses the term "moral intuition" for the background of the decisions made in the relative realm, because it doesn't seem to help, to have a general rule applied to the problem, like what the utilitarians had "The greatest good for the greatest number of people." Wilber proposes instead to have "The greates depth for the greates span." What is meant by that is that along these lines of development you find notoriously more people on lower levels and less people on higher levels. There is more span on lower levels and more depth on higher levels.
This is not suprising of course. If we take a rather simple scale of development in the exterior world we have atoms, molecules and cells. Each subsequent level trascends and includes its predecessor, i.e. molecules trascend atoms but also include them. Therefore molecules are not better than atoms, only more inclusive. There is more span for atoms, because there are many more atoms than molecules in this universe. There is no going around that, because apart from the atoms in the moledules there are also the atoms, that are within the molecules. And the same goes for each subsequent stage on that line. And you can't skip stages, because the earlier stages are the ingredients of the latter stages. Nobody has ever seen a brain that didn't contain molecules. And nobody has been at the post-conventional stage in, say, NVC, before having gone through the conventional stage, because the knowledge and awareness of the conventions are part of what you need to transcend and include them.
A question in which Wilber sees this applied is in animal rights. Even people in PETA judge by depth. Every animal is important until you get down to shrimp, maybe. Or bacteria. Or virusses - even though these are sentient beings as well. He recalls that his deceased wife, Treya, kind of intuitively did that with eating meat. She said that she would only eat animals that she herself could kill. So fish? Yes. Rabbit and chicken? Yes. A cow? No. I find that that makes sense.
This is called moral intuition, because you can't make a rule out of a balance. Is it span that is more important here, or depth? What outweighs the other? What gets the priority here? This always has to be decided anew, because every situation is a little different.
Conventionally we say that up until the 12th week of pregnancy the depth of the whole organism of the mother and her life outweighs the depths of the fetus. Beyond that we say the inverse. But it's still the same question: What is the greatest depth for the greates span? Do we want to help the mother develop a stable and healthy life that helps her to support a child better at a later point in time? Or is it more important to give this new being a chance to develop itself under the circumstances that it will find itself in?
With that I want to open the discussion. I hope you find my introduction helpful and enjoyable. Looking forward to intriguing comments.
Curiously
Niklas
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/wasistshortview.php?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx
Susan L
nature to guide my moral intuition. Most of my knowledge and
experience is about cats.
So let's consider the cat. The cat is a mammal that conceives more
embryos than they will carry to term and simply reabsorbs the "extras"
without aborting the "keepers." After the litter is born, the mother
decides whether or not to nurture the kittens; she will withhold food
and warmth from those she sees are not viable or in response to any
diminishing of her nurturing resources (such as drought or
overpopulation). In cases where a mother rejects a viable kitten,
another mother with excess nurturing resources may adopt that kitten
and rear it successfully to adulthood. In no cases is the biological
mother judged or punished in any way for rejecting a kitten, viable or
not, prior or subsequent to birth - not by the father, not by the rest
of the litter, not by the other adults in the pride. In cases where
two mothers give birth in close physical and temporal proximity, they
often co-mother both litters.
The point is that it is the mother that decides, and she decides all
over again for each separate pregnancy and for each individual
instance. I have actually seen this process at work. Can we be as
compassionate as the cats? Can we make judgments only for ourselves
and refrain from imposing our ideas of what's right on others?
Niklas Wilkens
I very much like that approach. I agree that not clinging to an image of what might be right, regardless of the circumstances, would definitely make the matter easier. I assume that a woman who doesn't see how she could meet both her and a child's needs and who would be sure, that she wouldn't suffer from being shunned or excluded in her community, would probably like to give another woman the opportunity to nurture the child.
But without that?
- Niklas
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
> Von: Susan L <su...@propeace.net>
> An: NVC Evolves <nvc-e...@googlegroups.com>
> Betreff: Re: On abortion and moral intuition
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
Angela Harms
I hear you saying that you really love the simplicity--the lack of drama--around cat parenting, and how the mothers aren't pressured to raise a kid they don't want to raise.
I'm guessing that you also feel great sadness around the complications, judgements and drama you see around a (human) woman choosing to end a pregnancy, and seeing the contrast with cats brings you some comfort.
Is this right?
Angela
Whenever I have a conflict in making a moral decision, I turn to
nature to guide my moral intuition. Most of my knowledge and
experience is about cats.
So let's consider the cat and other such mammals that conceive more
embryos than they will carry to term and simply reabsorb the "extras"
without aborting the "keepers." After the litter is born, the mother
decides whether or not to nurture the kittens; she will withhold food
and warmth from those she sees are not viable or in response to any
diminishing of her nurturing resources (such as drought or
overpopulation). In cases where a mother rejects a viable kitten,
another mother with excess nurturing resources may adopt that kitten
and rear it successfully to adulthood. In no cases is the biological
mother judged or punished in any way for rejecting a kitten, viable or
not, prior or subsequent to birth - not by the father, not by the rest
of the litter, not by the other adults in the pride.
The point is that it is the mother that decides, and she decides all
over again for each separate pregnancy and for each individual
instance. Can we be as compassionate as the cats? Can we make
Craig Sones Cornell
Your post on relative moral decision making realy stimulated and moved
me. It has added a clarity that I lacked about how to defend a pro-
choice position. I am still pondering how to integrate it with NVC,
but maybe it is not really part of NVC exactly. One of the beauties of
the NVC approach is that it does not speak to moral values (not moral
judgments) and leave a lot of freedom to explore.
Anyway, I am really appreciative of the way you explored and explained
Ken Wilber's brilliant insights in how we reach decisions with
different approaches to moral thinking.
All the best, Craig.
Angela Harms
* it can help me meet some of my needs
* it can fail to help me meet some needs,
* it can get in the way of my meeting my needs.
When there is a pregnancy, some people are at choice, and have an opportunity to notice what they're experiencing, and to notice their needs as they're able, and to try to meet those needs as best they can. With the realization that I don't need to take a moral stand, and that the beauty of these opportunities that life brings us, I notice great comfort, and great joy. Yay!
Conal Elliott
Susan L
I butchered your sentence because I HAVE seen documentation about such
cases among non-western human mothers, too. I remember reading a
particular anthropological report where the mother would break the
newborn's neck by standing on a branch as it lay on the ground if
there was drought, famine, or disease, if it was born with a defect
for which there were no available compensatory strategies, if it was
born premature and too weak to suckle, or if she were still nursing a
toddler. She would then dispose of the body and return to the village
and receive the support of the other women in her grief, and the
entire community would treat her with great gentleness.
And yes, I really love it when every child knows while growing up that
(s)he is precious.
> I'm guessing that you also feel great sadness around the complications, judgements and drama you
Yes, and I also feel resentful about the "pro-choice" frame that is
used to describe such a difficult, tragic decision. To me, "choice"
sounds so frivolous - like one is selecting from among equally
desirable alternatives, like which top to wear or what to order for
dinner at a restaurant. At least in western culture, I would rather
talk about such a weighty decision in terms of two needs: self-
determination and privacy. In the case of mothers in the culture I
described above, such drama is not found decision because cultural
norms are in place to meet those needs, and the mother can get her
deeper needs met for caring and support.
What I still don't understand is why moral judgment is even part of
the picture. Because there's a human life involved? I would argue
that there is more than one human life involved, and that considering
only the needs (or rights) of one of them is bound to result in a
poorly-informed decision.
And I don't think that the scientific question of when life begins has
any bearing on the issue. When life begins is a cultural question,
not a scientific one. There are also cultures in which life begins at
the child's naming ceremony - others in which the eruption of the
first tooth marks the beginning of life - others in which life begins
at weaning. So let's get off our self-righteous, scientific high
horse and make this decision easier for women by making our tools
(both medical and humanitarian) available to them in their need.
Conal Elliott
Before any more of it continues, I'd like either (a) to have the abortion discussion moved off list or (b) have someone clearly and tersely explain to me how it is on topic.
Okey dokey? - Conal
Niklas Wilkens
To me this is on topic from the perspective of processing publicly debated issues in a way that makes a more indepth understanding possible and more options apparent - two things which belong to evolution if you ask me.
Sometimes I imagine myself with a magic wand, recently having discovered its potential to turn a bleak and distant world into a friendly, loving and beautifully vulnerable world. And when I skim through the topics that come up for me, I cock my head and say "I wonder what's gonna happen, if I..." Then I strecht my arm and let the wand work.
That's kind of what I did with this one. And then I'm curious about what might come up.
At the same time I see that this might have to do with the evolution of NVC only in a broader sense. To the extent maybe that we mean by evolution, to learn bit by bit how we navigate the world from an NVC perspective. But still, I enjoy that.
Is that as clear and terse as you'd like it to be, Conal?
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:56:32 -0700
> Von: "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net>
> An: nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
> Betreff: Re: On abortion and moral intuition
> I want this list to stay on topic, and I see this discussion as mostly off
> topic.
>
> Before any more of it continues, I'd like either (a) to have the abortion
> discussion moved off list or (b) have someone clearly and tersely explain
> to
> me how it is on topic.
>
> Okey dokey? - Conal
Niklas Wilkens
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:55:49 -0700
> Von: "Conal Elliott" <co...@conal.net>
> An: nvc-e...@googlegroups.com
> Betreff: Re: On abortion and moral intuition
> "Moral value"? What's an example of a moral value that's not a moral
> judgment?
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Craig Sones Cornell <
> st...@craigsonescornell.com> wrote:
> > ...One of the beauties of
> > the NVC approach is that it does not speak to moral values (not moral
> > judgments) and leave a lot of freedom to explore.
--
Craig Sones Cornell
I did not express myself as clearly as I would have liked to have.
What I was intending is that our moral judgments are or can be
separate from judgmentalism. NVC seems to have this as a basic
foundation which I really resonate with. That said, I acually have
some trouble at times with how they are separate in me and my NVC
practice and I have, as you know, difficulty in seeing how some like
Vegans and anti-choice activists can be expected to not take action as
the protective use of force from their perspective. Which is moral
values and which is judgmentalism in their hearts and perspectives. Am
I being subtly judgmental in my view of either side of either of these
issues. This can turn into an am I in ego, how do I get out of ego
when attempting to do so is being in ego kind of circular trap.
For me inclusion is really big with NVC and everything I do and want.
It is what others have called an organizing principle or core value
that is very much alive for me. I want to conceive of NVC as something
that invites everyone without requiring them to change as a
prerequiste. The beautiful changes that have come into my life through
and with NVC that allow me to awaken in the moring with a sense of
self-worth and purpose are bring tears to my eyes as I type this. I
want that for everyone. I can conceive that for everyone no matter how
much they trigger me.
I am clear that I have opertional values at my core that are coming
alive and into consciousness through NVC. aI wish I had better
digested what Niklas had to write. I am sure there is some guidance
there.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Craig Sones Cornell
I appreciate your wanting to stay "on topic". I went to the
description of the group. From that and the title, I am guessing that
is what you are wanting more direct connection to NVC and ways a
discussion on the topic of abortion could be a part of that evolution.
Perhaps you are reacting to people limiting their posts to explaining
their position or perspective. The statements of perspective on
abortion have been important to me, because they allow my heart and
consciousness to expand to incorporate a wider perspective than I had
before. Needs for growth and connection are met. In terms of my core
value of inclusion, I am seeing how that might work for someone who is
a absolute proponent of abortion under any circumstances as an
absolute right. Even in my switch from being essentially anti-abortion
to one that is essentially pr0choice. I am getting a greater sense of
inclusion and possibility.
Abortion is an issue of enormous pain and pain bodies for me. My main
pain at the moment is that there is such a huge gap between most of
those who are on one side or the other. It is almost always expressed
in my experience by shouting and recrimination from both sides.
Murderer. Biggot. Anti-woman. Anti-baby, etc. Even the
conceptualization that there are sides causes my heart to ache. For me
the pain is that for so many it is an area of huge judgment of the
other. Even in our discussion here there is a subtle and not so subtle
judgment of the side that most call anti-abortion.
What I am missing in the statement of positions is a sense of empathy
for the “other” side. I have learned something about the side that
favors non-judgment in terms of abortion. I have increased my skills
of empathy and self-empathy as I read and react to different
statements of perspective. I have not experienced much empathy or
perspective for the totality of the experience of the side that favors
much more consideration of the unborn one, except for the post from
Niklas which was as some have pointed out more philosophical than
experiential. I don’t want this to be taken as a knock on Niklas. I
have adequately expressed my appreciation for him elsewhere. Actually,
the expansion of my mind is an important part of my experience on
boards like this. The expansion of my heart usually happens in my fact-
to-face encounters with people in my life be they in my home, my
circle of friends, my empathy buddies, my practice groups, my
trainings. I have had a lot of fun with the topic of making quick, in
passing connection which is a thread that Gedding started and I
restarted. That has come alive for me. But maybe I am straying off
topic. My mind, heart, and soul do not easily divide the world into
clear edged topics. Anyway, I regret that I do not grow as much in
empathy with those who trigger me. That is a big cutting edge for me.
It is one I invite anyone who shares that cutting edge to explore
further on the abortion topic.
For me, something that would be more in the spirit of the direct
application of NVC would be for us to expand our empathy skills to
incorporate the "other" side of the abortion question than the one we
hold dear. This would be an NVC’ish an exercise in increasing our
depth of empathy under the internal fire of judgment jackals. I would
also think that this could be an opportunity to deepen our self-
empathy skills inquiring into what needs and core values are behind
our position and how we can connect from those needs to the needs of
those of the other side. I would imagine that it would be something
like written role play exchanges where someone plays a person who
holds a perspective on abortion that you disagree with or even find
repugnant. This would, I would hope, lead to an internal space of less
judgment and more connection with the “other” person. It would also be
a model for me on how I can connect with people who hold either
position.
Conal, you asked for us to move the abortion issue related to NVC to
another thread. I guess that this is it. Your challenged us to express
briefly how the thread relates to NVC evolving. I am afraid I have
again not met your request for brevity, but I hope I have responded
with a way that NVC and abortion can be a huge part of the evolution
of NVC for us.
I am interested in whether this shift of the abortion topic has any
interest for you Conal or for others in this group.
All the best, Craig.
P.S. I see that Angela has moved the topic of the relevanc of an
abortion discussion to another thread. I was torn, especially in light
of recent feedback, to reply on Angela's thread, but decided to reply
here. Sorry if that stubs anyone's toes.
Craig Sones Cornell
dash off a concise response. I have responded directly to Conal in a
different post to help clear it up.
I am touched and deeply moved by your attempt to understand or look to
a possibility for the meaning of my post. My jackals were begining to
call me a cast off looser who should just skulk off beaten and in
shame. I suppose some might find that a relief. But I am here for now
and intend to stay until it meets my needs to leave. I have a very
warm sense of inclusion and acceptance by your little line.
All the best, Craig.