Your mileage may vary This is an advice column that provides a new framework for thinking through your ethical dilemma and philosophical questions. To submit your questions, please email sigal at [email protected] or fill out this anonymous form. Either way, if we choose your question, it will be anonymized. This is this week's question.
I am sure the battle against authoritarianism is the most important issue of our time. My family moved to the US from an authoritarian country. My relatives and I are shocked and terrified that the same thing is falling for the United States.
There is more you can do to participate in the resistance of democracy. I'm in the work of a public face (not government) who can shape my work in a way that brings more attention to Trump's corruption and war on the American people. But I feel like my work doesn't make a big difference. And what's the point, as I think I'll be targeted and punished by the Trump administration for that?
On the path we are currently on, more and more Americans will be persecuted to do things the administration doesn't like, and I fear potential consequences for myself and my colleagues. It's a matter of collective action, as no one wants to stop Trump and Musk. How can I navigate this dilemma ethically, rationally and without ruining my life?
Dear rational resistance,
Growing up in the Jewish community, my childhood was filled with stories about the Holocaust. I have heard obviously horrifying stories, but I have also heard of them inspiring those who resisted the Nazis. My kids are obsessed with the question: if I had been in their place, would I have had the same courage as they did? Would you like to hide someone in the attic?
I have been thinking about this question a lot since January 20th. Not because I think America today is on par with Nazi Germany, but because many of us are wondering how much we are now. How do you navigate the tension between personal safety and moral responsibility? Is there anything about living in an extraordinary time that demands us more morally than we normally take risks?
I don't think that the moral demands of the universe will suddenly change in these times. Instead, I think I look to the reality that this era has been there for a long time. Just as Western modernity has conditions we should consider, we are not just atomized individuals. We are interdependent. Our destiny is connected to the destiny of others, so in order to truly see ourselves and our own families, we must also be aware of the wider population.
A special few have always been adjusted to this being a Buddhist monk, for example, an extreme do-gooders, but most of us just look at reality like this when tragedy strikes. As author Larissa Macfarquhar wrote in the book A stranger is owned: impossible idealism, dramatic choices, and the urge to help:
Wartime – or, although it is in such a catastrophic crisis that it resembles a war such as an earthquake or a hurricane, obligations extend far beyond peacetime boundaries. During the war, I think leaving your family for a cause is not unnatural, but loyal. During the war, the line between family and strangers grows faintly. As our obligation to ourselves expands to encompass all those on the same side…
This is the difference between do-gooders and ordinary people. For do-gooders it's always wartime. They always feel responsible for strangers. They always feel strangers are their own people, like their fellow war brethren.
Whether it's a war, an earthquake, or an attack on democracy, dramatic events can cause Bertine's kind of change in perspective, from Me-Myopia to more telescope visions. We consider ourselves to be part of a larger story of humanity, not just borders but generational.
Is there a question you would like me to answer that the next mileage might change the line?
I think that's why we all praise the right Gentiles. By taking Jews, they sometimes put their children at risk, but we usually thought it was morally dangerous (in fact, it is against the wiring of parents who don't blame their parents who can't take themselves). They saw a world that passed on beyond their children. What's good about bringing your child into a morally bankrupt world? And if you did, what would you model for them?
Looking at that big story motivates us to act against authoritarianism, even when it is dangerous. Yes, like you said, “I'm afraid of potential consequences for me and my colleagues,” and it may be scary to stick our necks out now, but remember that authoritarian want You will find it too scary to resist. It is how they cultivate predictive obedience and how they gain power over time.
Today, for most of us, the risk is actually relatively minimal. If you act now, you may lose your job, or perhaps even paying back your organization, you may lose more jobs. That's nothing. However, unless you are an undocumented immigrant, or are particularly vulnerable under Trump administration policies, you are now unlikely to be deported, imprisoned, or physically harmed the way in which the surrogates in a more authoritarian state were.
And if you didn't act now, America would have gone well. It's going to become A more authoritarian state. If that happens, future people may not be able to resist without facing extreme consequences. It's now a debate to resist, but you can do it with relatively low risk.
But it is not a discussion of acting noble, but a discussion recklessly. It is a discussion to act strategically.
Consider the story of Queen Esther in the Hebrew Bible. When she learns of the plot to destroy the Jews, her people, she faces a horrifying choice: she can plead to plead for her husband, the Persian king, for their protection – which means risking her own life.
At first she tells her cousin Mordecai that she cannot march over the king and speak his heart. That's not how it works to be a queen. But he responds with a strong rebuttal. What he is doing there is causing a lush change in perspective. She stops seeing herself as an individual and begins to see herself as someone who is constantly trying to look at her group.
You can also be strategic. Rather than acting impulsively and alone, you can build a network of support by reaching out to colleagues both inside and outside the organization.
And that “Who knows?” also serves as a challenge. In situations of moral crisis, people often feel, as you wrote, “My work will not make much difference.” Mordecai says: Who knows! Your job may not make a difference – but You don't know thatSo you have to try something.
It works: Ester Act. But be aware of how she behaves. She immediately rushes to the king and does not tell him to save the Jews. First, she will build a network of support and develop a multi-part strategy. She changes into the Nines and is attractive to the King, so he may want to protect her. She invites the king and his vizier to a party, where they wine and eat. The next day, she invites them to another party. Gradually, through carefully organized moments of influence, she uncovers the truth and makes her ask.
Ester is what Dutch historian Rutger Bregman might call the noble winner. in Moral AmbitionBregman encourages readers to be more ambitious about the good that they can do for the world. He points to historical examples of those who rose up for the righteousness, and he points out that some are “noble losers.” Consider the famous photo showing all German crowds paying homage to Hitler, and the single man who refused to salute.
“He was on the right side of history, but he didn't make history,” Bregman wrote. “If you really want to change things, someone like Rosa Parks is a better role model.”
The park was a noble winner. She didn't just decide one day in a fierce, intense moment to refuse to give up her seat on that bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Instead, she quietly engaged in the civil rights movement for years and studied protest tactics. It was planned that she refused to abandon her seat. An action group called the Women's Political Council, strategically portrayed her as a kind tailored heroine, Mirketoast enough to make a white American fall behind, and launched an appeal to boycott the bus system the moment she was arrested. Careful planning and collaboration paid off. They achieved not only fame, but concrete victory.
You can also be strategic. Rather than acting impulsively and alone, you can build a network of support by reaching out to colleagues both inside and outside the organization. If you are a non-profit employee, you can organize within your union and push them to take a specific stance. If you are an educator, you can coordinate your behavior with other schools. If you are a journalist, you can contact other journalists and build consensus on covering news events in a specific way. For example, a purge could be called a purge. The key is to reach out to others and build strength together.
And another word about those righteous Gentiles. After the Holocaust, psychologists began studying them and began to understand why they bravely agreed to hide the Jews. Maybe they were friends with Jews before the war? Maybe they had a spare room or extra savings hidden? Maybe some people are wired just altruistic?
no. Psychologists have found that none of these factors makes a difference. Instead, as Bregman tells in his book:
There was one situation that almost everything was decided. A new analysis of the data showed that almost everyone took action when this condition was met.
And what was that situation? Simple: I had to ask. People who were asked to help those in danger almost always said yes.
Asking each other and acting together is how we operate an unfair system. Now, move on. Reach out to someone. listen.
Bonus: What I'm reading
- In New Yorker, Kyle Chaika writes about “Eron Musk's AI-Fuel War with Human Institutions.” He says, “The governments run by people are cautious and slow by design. The mechanical versions become faster and ruthless, reducing the need for human labor or human decision-making.”
- Is the main trend in philosophy today the result of the fact that most “great” Western thinkers were… bachelor's degrees? That's what philosopher Mary Midley thought. She argued that she had no experience living with women or children, as this essay from Ion explains, led these unmarried men to produce an overly abstract, excluded philosophy from life.
- In the previous article in this advice column, I challenged the idea that having a child always fundamentally changes someone's personality. So when I saw a new article on Olga Kazan's topic, “I knew that being a parent would change me, but how did I not know” – it clicked quickly for me. Olga is always cheerful and not disappointed.
This story was originally published HighlightsA magazine for Vox members only. To get early access to our members-only stories each month: Join the VOX Membership Program now.
