I wrote this post on the Moral War around this time last year.

In The Great influenza, author John Barry describes how viruses work. They attach themselves to certain receptors in the body. The virus replicates itself. It disguises itself. It destroys from within mercilessly. As much as we try to develop medications to cure them, the best advice is to let it run its course. The even better advice is, “the best offense is a great defense.”

Moral wars are like viruses.

When we battle each other on the field of morality, we battle for something intangible. That intangible is greater than us, it cannot be quantified, it’s deep, it’s often linked to power.

Moral wars never end well.

The problem with morality and righteousness is morality and righteousness.

When everybody’s belief sets are different, who’s truly right?

When the word looks different to everyone, who has the right to say their perspective is the most accurate?

I believe the answer comes from reconciling differences — compromise.

We observe the world and the brain reconciles what it sees with probability of how things are and creates vision for us. Why can’t we do that amongst ourselves?

What’s the hard part about taking various worldviews and reconciling it into one view we all can accept?

My working theory — who wants to admit their view wasn’t entirely accurate?