Doing the Right Thing Will Solve the Mid-East Crisis and is Good for Your Mental Health

The back page of the New York Times, Week in Review section had an anthropologist and a psychologist claiming a solution to the mid-east crisis. It's not land, or money, or oil, or resources, or peace that the Palestinians and Israeli's want. It's words. More specifically, apologetic words. Acknowledgment words. Validation words.

Atran and Ginges argued that people on both sides of the divide would choose raging war over sacrificing their values and what they believe in. Palestinians want an apology from the Israeli's, and Israeli's want an acknowledgment of its right to exist from the Palestinians. According to the authors, this is not only an essential part of the peace process; it could actually be the peace process itself.

This is just the kind of argument that has economists and mathematicians decrying the social sciences as intellectually sloppy parasites sucking the university resources dry. At first glance, you can see their point. But before everyone storms off in a huff, there is something to what they are saying.

They write, "People will reject material compensation for dropping their commitment to sacred values (such as family, country, religion, honor) and will defend those values regardless of the costs."

In other words, you will stand up for what you believe in over your own comfort. In some cases, you would literally defend it to your death.

The mid-east crisis is an extreme example, but I see this principle in action every day in my job. In the cancer hospital where I work, nurses and doctors will quit because of the unethical things they have no control over. If they can't quit because of money, they burnout or turn to alcohol or drugs to deal with the stress.

It's not the overwork that kills them (although that's part of the problem). It's that they are not living in line with their principles. Psychologists call this "moral distress." It's when the par between what you believe in and what actually happens is too wide for you to bear and it causes tension. Anyone who has ever been in this kind of situation can tell you that it's soul destroying.

So while the social scientists may be a tad dramatic with their contention that ethics and morals can solve the mid-east crisis, I think their point is relevant to our lives.

Everyone wants to be a good person, but the underlying message we get in the culture is that morals and ethics aren't cool. In fact, we are supposed to drop them the second they interfere with our goals. Think about how many times you have been encouraged to cheat just a little bit or turn a blind eye to that unethical person in your workplace in order to get ahead. It's built right into the capitalist system. Lie, cheat, steal and step over everyone and anything that gets in your way.

What's so powerful about bringing ethics back to the table is that it validates something that runs counter to the way we operate, but that we intuitively know is true. It acknowledges that people who believe in something are inclined to protect their values over anything else, and if that if they can't do that, they will suffer emotionally for it.

Maybe it's time to start talking about values in the government, ethics in the office, and morals in the classroom? Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that there should be ONE set of values for everyone. But it's about time we start acknowledging how important these beliefs are to living a good life.

It may even be a matter of life or death.

Comments

[Arrowsplitter16]

I'll join the chorus in suggesting that Granek doesn't believe apologies will solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis on their own. I think the important point to take is that the solution to the problem - or at least the first step toward it - isn't as complicated as some might make it out to be. It has to start with healing words, meant genuinely. Without that, no amount of nuts-and-bolt negotiating will produce a remedy.

Granek also makes a great point about ethics, and the stomach-churning situations many of us face in our jobs. The one point of contention I'll raise is her linking of ethical lapses to the capitalist system. Yes, capitalism encourages us to ignore ethical concerns for personal gain (or simply survival). But the alternatives - socialism, for example, as it's been practiced throughout history - are even worse. Under socialist or communist regimes, ordinary citizens have even less hope of holding their leaders' feet to the ethical fire, and even more to fear from trying to do so.

[JGatsby]

I'm pleased that President Obama seems to understand what I mean. He has recently authorized $3M for relief of Gaza.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/relief_for_gaza/

This is what I'm talking about. "Sorrys" are nice but $3M can buy food and medicine.

[HRN]

I would vote that Gatsby here is not only missing the point of this article-- that a change in attitude is needed in the world of politics and beyond-- but Gatsby also seems to be using this forum to rant its biased and abusive view point (not to mention its inexplicable support of Hamas, an admitted terrorist organization). Granek, I believe, was speaking against the exact narrowminded offensiveness of which she now seems to have become the victim. Each person, culture, nation/state needs to examine its actions in the context of "do unto others"-- Granek seems disturbed by the rule book that advocates people to "Lie, cheat, steal and step over everyone and anything that gets in your way." I agree wholeheartedly with her on this point-- we need to find a collective way, not just "our way"... we need to open our minds to the possibility that there is another viewpoint, another soul at the other end of our actions, and that they are perhaps equally deserving of those things that we so ardently want for ourselves. Maybe if we do this, we can work more collaboratively toward peace at every level of society.

[JGatsby]

You say "we need to find a collective way, not just "our way" and then you say "not to mention its inexplicable support of Hamas, an admitted terrorist organization" So much for finding a "collective way" when you exclude the elected representatives of one side. In fact if you look at what Hamas is, if you talk to actual people or intellectuals in the muslim and arab world you will find that Hamas is much more than a terrorist organization. They run hospitals provide people with food education jobs, etc. They are the only thing keeping the people of Gaza from total despair. I admit they indulge in terrorism. And I think they are wrong to do that and should stop. But you can't just criticize the crimes of one side and ignore the crimes of the other. In their latest attack on Gaza the IDF has killed hundreds of times more innocent civilians than Hamas has. I challenge you to find anything hateful in what I've written. What I'm against is hypocrisy and simple minded solutions that ignore the crimes of BOTH sides.

[Scripto-paloozo]

Mr Gatsby, I did not interpret the author as saying a simple sorry (by either side) will remedy years of death (on either side)...that would indeed be naive in the extreme. She is simply leaving room for the possibility of some kind of shift/change (gradual - of course; tentative -surely) based on simple gestures of good faith. I, for one, am open to that!

[JGatsby]

She said "It's not land, or money, or oil, or resources, or peace that the Palestinians and Israeli's want. It's words. More specifically, apologetic words. Acknowledgment words. Validation words." Nowhere does she mention the countless crimes that have been committed against the muslim and arab world. I'm sorry but that is naive and irresponsible. We can't just offer some kind words and expect things to be different. We need to change our behavior (and give groups like Hamas a reason to believe that it is to their benefit to change their behavior). It offends me to hear about a "moral approach" to the mideast that is based on "apologetic words". If she says that talking is the first step to changing behavior, OK, but I didn't see that.

[springsings]

My family describes me as naive for believing that this can be the way.
Why is belief in the possibilities naive.
what other choice is there?

[JGatsby]

If you believe that just saying sorry will remedy years of death, destruction, and torture you are at best naive. What other choice is there? We can choose to change our behavior. We can stop treating the muslim world as if one hundred of their dead is equal to one of ours. We can stop insisting that people we don't like (Iraq, Iran) must adhere to UN resolutions while people we do like (Israel) can just ignore them. We can stop overthrowing governments just because they don't do what we say. We can stop saying that we love democracy while we ignore any democratic elections that don't go the way we want them to. In short we can go back to living up to the values that made this country great.

[MJSGK]

This article poses an interesting challenge that we bring our value system into life decisions- even life or death decisions. Words may not solve the mid east crisis but ultimately the peace process is about words translated into action. A very thought provoking article.

[JGatsby]

So the Palestinians will just be happy if Israel says its sorry? The Gaza strip is surrounded literally with a wall. The people there can not get water, food, medicine or earn a decent living. But if we just say "sorry" they will go back to their hovels and politely die off and stop shooting rockets at their oppressors? I think Obama's reaching out to the middle east was an excellent first step but to believe that that is ALL it takes is ridiculous. Its the same kind of thinking that the Bush administration exhibited when they sent Karen Hughes to the middle east on her abysmal PR offensive. There are real grievances that the muslim and arab world have with the US and they aren't going to be solved by just saying sorry.