I may fail. That seems the likely outcome. But if I succeed, and when I do, I want to succeed with the way I believe in.
"I can compromise on trivial matters. But things that a central to my moral feelings, my notions of right and wrong I can't waver. It may come across as stubborn, but I am open to discussion on an ethical level. What you've described are practical reasons, real-world implications that would benefit me. I can't be swayed to act against my ethics by personal gain."
She's out of options. I've rejected each one, with reasons legitimate to me, but probably irrelevant to her. "Well, I hope you do find some way to get where you're going." She's sincere, but also a little stung that I've critiqued her philosophy, a little fed up that I am so difficult to move by her arguments (which she likely found to be excellent), and I can produce no viable alternative plan.
My response is probably not the best way to respond emotionally, and I have enough counter-arguments to possible points she may present for days, that it can appear I'm just fixed on my position and unwilling to let go, but it's not because I want to be in this position - it's I've already thought the points she brings up, through and through, and found them not to work.
"Well that's my struggle. I hope you get to your place too, and I believe you will. I can see it happening and others can. You will get your opportunities. I just hope one day - when you've made it and you're sitting in your director's chair - maybe you'll remember words I've said and think about them then. See if you see things differently.
I may fail. That seems the likely outcome. But if I succeed, and when I do, I want to succeed with the way I believe in. Because the other way, the option you're presenting me, won't do that. There is no success there, even if I get what I'm after, it doesn't accomplish what I'm looking for at the fundamental level.
Maybe I'm wrong. Shrug. Maybe I see further down the road... twenty years later to you sitting at your director desk one day with a spare moment to pause, and you'll think some of the same thoughts I am thinking now. Or maybe I'm giving myself too much credit for my oracle abilities. Laughs."
You bring up a good point about responding emotionally. I'm thinking that we should probably give some energy towards acknowledging people's emotions when they are met with our resistance, but...
ReplyDeleteIt makes me think of two politicians vying for position and getting visually upset when the other guy isn't validating his point.
(Validating doesn't mean agreeing)
And so catering to the emotions of the other person who would not understand your moral and ethical reserves doesn't actually serve a purpose as far as the fate of the debate or decision is concerned.
To be honest, I never saw how responding with emotions or responding to the emotions of others has worked in anyone's favor whenever the real task at hand is - for the most part - unrelated to emotions and more anchored in logistics.
Wait, are ethics and moral grounds paved with emotion or are they just subjugated by emotional reactions when brought under question?
You've made me think.
Yeah, but that person may have some perspective that is useful to listen to. Treating a discussion like a debate won't help me discover new ideas. I want to share my dilemma and get someone else to see the problem I'm struggling to work out. I'm hoping to hear, hey you're right that is a tough issue. But if I don't pay attention to the other person's feelings, and if I only respond with logic to counter their statements, the conversation probably won't go very far.
ReplyDelete