The Power of Open Disagreement

            Have you ever openly addressed something that then led to benefiting others? So many instances we advocate something without knowing it would lead to something bigger. For Michael J. Sandel, he believed that we should openly address disagreement since it can support the common good. Common good in this context would mean the positive impacts our open opinions can have on society. Therefore, for the common good, citizens should openly address moral disagreement on matters of public policy as it promotes a better standard of living and decreases tension, creating a more cohesive society.

 

            To start, having the freedom to openly address moral disagreement promotes a better standard of living for citizens in that particular area. Take this situation in which the government is enforcing a situation where construction must be done on a particular highway to promote transportation. The government is about to begin this six-month construction on a highway that is an essential transportation route for those traveling from the suburbs to the city. An outside construction worker, or geographer specialized in transportation, may see this plan as detrimental to society. Their specialized knowledge behind construction allows them to determine that this construction site will be present for way longer than six months, and due to this construction, traffic will increase, and fewer people will be able to make it to their jobs in time, thus affecting the country's economy. Therefore, by openly addressing their disagreement to this plan—that this construction will not promote transportation time—the citizen who has openly addressed this disagreement has contributed to the common good by abolishing this policy which could have affected the comfort of society and the country's economy. Further, moral disagreement on public policy is shown in the TV show Grey's Anatomy, where Meredith Grey openly addresses a disagreement on the public policy of organ donation for the common good. It is said that if a patient chooses not to be an organ donor, then doctors must abide by this rule. However, in this TV show, a patient had suffered a car accident and was later pronounced brain dead. Despite having a healthy lifestyle and perfectly functioning organs, he and his family had chosen that his organs should not be donated, and would not support the lives of others since these organs were made for their son. Yet, a terminally ill boy, in need of a heart and kidney, was laying at rest in the other room. Meredith disagrees with this decision and secretly performs surgery to transplant the heart and kidney to the terminally ill boy, and the rest of the organs to other sick patients. Her actions support the common good by improving the standard of living for her other patients. However, should we violate ethical guidelines to support the common good? Meredith's actions were extremely unethical, and therefore increased her chances of losing her medical license. However, those patients all survived from the organ donation surgery, and therefore were allowed to work again, contribute to the economy, and provide support to their families. Though I highly disagree with Meredith's actions, as a doctor, her job is to look out for what is best for her patients. And despite her actions being unethical, she fulfilled her role as a doctor and helped those in need for the common good of society.

 

            Moreover, having the freedom to openly address moral disagreement decreases tension throughout society by promoting a cohesive society. As it is obvious, the most cohesive societies are ones where the majority of the citizens agree on the same public policies. The same goes for group projects. Students in group projects should ensure everyone agrees on the same topic beforehand, to avoid tension and promote success for the common good. Therefore, openly addressing disagreement can lead to a more cohesive society and avoid groupthink. Take a situation where the government is taking feedback from citizens through surveys on what public policies the government should enforce. A leader openly addresses a law he would like to enforce, that all bathrooms at shopping malls, restaurants, and throughout the country should be gender neutral. As people complete the surveys on whether they think this is a good idea, he encourages honesty. As citizens who morally disagree with this policy openly address it, they can provide their insights, maybe experiences that they have had with this policy before, and suggest the disadvantages of having this policy. For example, for me, having this policy at school has disrupted my feeling of comfort. Citizens can use their insight to communicate to the government about this policy, which may not only promote similar beliefs with others, but promote peace, as these disagreements allow the government to determine which course of action will be the best. If nobody was honest, the government risks enforcing a rule that may be detrimental to society, and therefore lead to protest, conflict, or violence, which is not good for the common good. Further, openly addressing moral disagreement on a public policy has been evidently shown through the actions performed by Rosa Parks. During the 1960s, Rosa Parks openly addressed her disagreement towards the public policy of having to sit at the back of the bus, as she believed it was morally wrong and unjust that her skin color determined where she could sit. Thus, her actions that she openly addressed towards this public policy contributed to the common good, as she promoted racial justice for society and shed light on racial segregation.

 

            Through openly addressing her moral disagreement through her Montgomery bus movement, she further promoted racial freedom and highlighted the racial inequalities that were present, supporting those who also experienced racism but were too afraid to speak up. Her actions have therefore impacted the common good as they led to a change in perception of society, and promoted a more cohesive society. Her actions have created a long-lasting impact that is still recognized today. However, openly addressing moral disagreement may not always be civil and can periodically have a negative impact on the common good. For example, during the period when Rosa Parks advocated for change, she experienced violence through her protest, and was even jailed for disobeying. Her movement sparked some violence and therefore was not good for the common good as it increased the tension throughout society. However, that was only for a period of time, and without her actions that took place decades ago, society's perception on racial justice would not be the same. Therefore, though her actions did not promote good for the common good during a period of time, the long-lasting effects overshadow it.