Yes, We Can Get Along Despite Our Philosophical Differences

If we can agree on protecting individual rights, abundant opportunities exist for making common cause with those who otherwise don’t share our philosophy.

I have increasingly come to regard certain questions as part of a kind of moral/political intelligence test: Can you peacefully coexist with people whose deepest convictions you reject? Can you live in societal harmony with people who think your philosophy of life is profoundly mistaken, perhaps even dangerous? And are you prepared to defend their right to promote their philosophy, teach it to their children, and build communities around it, while they criticize yours?

I’m not one to slap a “Coexist” sticker on my car, but my answer is yes. Not because I have abandoned my convictions, but because I take them seriously.

I think reason is man’s proper guide to life. I think the individual exists for his own sake, not as a sacrificial animal for collectivist ends. I think human beings flourish most fully when free to think, create, trade, love, build, and pursue happiness according to their own judgment. I think respect for and protection of individual rights is critical, that freedom of speech is not a government favor, and that the state should be strictly limited to protecting people from force and fraud through the military, law enforcement and the courts.

Conversely, I think religious and altruistic moral systems are profoundly mistaken; self-sacrifice is not the essence of virtue. I don’t think morality requires the renunciation of personal happiness. And I certainly do not think truth is established by revelation, feelings, tradition, or authority.

Yet I have no desire whatsoever to use political power to suppress those beliefs. In fact, I regard the desire to do so as evidence of philosophical insecurity. If your worldview cannot survive freedom, are you really standing on solid ground?

This has become difficult for many people to understand because politics has absorbed nearly every aspect of moral and cultural life. It’s been a long time since we merely disagreed about interpretations of the U.S. constitution. No, we disagree on conflicting visions of the role of government in minute detail. And because the welfare state has grown so immense, impacting every aspect of our lives, every disagreement feels existential.

The result is a society in which everyone is tempted to treat political opponents not as fellow citizens but as enemies of civilization. The progressive regards the religious conservative as a latent theocrat. The religious conservative regards the secular progressive as a cultural nihilist. The socialist regards the entrepreneur as morally suspect. The individualist regards the collectivist as a sanctimonious authoritarian. And, to be fair, sometimes all of them are correct.

But free societies do not require us to admire one another’s moral premises. They require something far more important: restraint. Specifically, restraint in the use of force, government and otherwise.

I have several deeply religious acquaintances who believe charity and self-sacrifice are central moral obligations. We disagree on fundamentals. They see humility before God as the beginning of wisdom. I see independent reasoning as the cornerstone of civilization.

Yet, we agree on almost everything political. Neither of us wants bureaucrats policing speech. Neither of us wants the government deciding which opinions are permissible. Neither of us wants citizens punished for peaceful exchange or voluntary association. Neither of us wants the state acting as national therapist, moral supervisor, or ideological referee.

In practice, we can coexist perfectly well. Why? Because neither of us is trying to rule the other’s conscience. This is the central principle upon which civilized life depends: moral and spiritual conflict must be conducted through persuasion rather than coercion. Once that line of coercion is crossed, politics becomes indistinguishable from religious warfare.

What troubles me most is that increasingly few people seem willing to defend freedom for those whose moral premises they reject. It seems a large majority supports liberty for allies only. That’s unprincipled and shows a lack of independent thinking. The real test is whether you defend the freedom of people who annoy you, offend you, or strike you as fundamentally mistaken.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Misattributed to Voltaire, this quote nevertheless perfectly captures my view. Truth cannot require force. If a religious doctrine is argued to be true, let it compete openly in the marketplace of ideas. If a secular moral philosophy is sound, let it persuade rational minds through argument and example. If a political system is just, let it defend itself without censorship or intimidation.

Human beings are not laboratory specimens to be arranged by enlightened planners. We are individuals with different temperaments, values, ambitions, talents, and spiritual needs. Some will pursue happiness through religion. Others through science, art, business, philosophy, family, or achievement. A mature political order leaves room for this diversity. What it may not do is grant any faction the power to impose its worldview using government force, violating the individual rights of others. That is the line I refuse to compromise on.

But within that framework there is room for cooperation. I can live peacefully beside the religious believer. I can fight for freedom alongside someone whose morality praises self-sacrifice. I can work with conservatives, leftists, atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and people whose metaphysical assumptions differ radically from mine. Provided they accept one fundamental rule: No one gets to use government force as a weapon for moral conquest. That rule, ultimately, is what makes freedom possible in a diverse society. Not philosophical agreement, but the recognition that civilized human beings settle moral disputes with words rather than force.

No, it is not a perfect arrangement, and overtime I hope more will come to see the world as I do. But in the meantime, we can make progress by making common cause championing the respect for and protection of individual rights.