Dear friends and family,
While everything from sports and music to climate change and medicine is political these days, the meaning of political neutrality is not what you think it is. I consider its my civic duty to talk policy and politics when someone brings up these days. Based on many conversation in last few days, weeks, months and even years, I’ve been reflecting on the idea of “balance” and how we sometimes bend over backward to be “neutral” or “fair” to every perspective. It’s well-meaning, for sure, but sometimes that desire to keep an open mind can lead us into some unhelpful territory. So, I wanted to share some thoughts on where I think balance can go wrong:
- False Balance Isn’t the Same as Fairness:
Not every side has an equal claim to the truth, and giving both sides the same platform can make people think they do. For example, think of the way news outlets sometimes cover scientifically proven topics, like climate change, alongside outright denial. It’s a bit like putting a flat-earther next to an astrophysicist and giving them both a microphone. We’re not helping people understand the world better if we treat fact and fiction as if they deserve the same respect. When one side has solid evidence and the other doesn’t, real fairness means recognizing that difference, not pretending they’re equal. Think of the debates around the health risks of smoking in the 20th century. Tobacco companies insisted on airing “both sides” long after scientific evidence established the dangers, which only prolonged the myth that smoking was harmless. - Over-Correction and Moral Equivalency:
Sometimes, to avoid seeming biased, we stretch to find something credible in every view, and that’s what social scientists call moral equivalency. It’s like hearing a clear ethical truth but over-correcting to find something redeemable in every viewpoint. But not every perspective deserves a platform. Think about civil rights—if one side argues for equality and the other side opposes it, giving them equal time isn’t real balance; it’s just diluting the impact of a moral truth. It merely dilutes the impact of truth by framing it as “just one perspective.” Giving credibility to every perspective, regardless of validity, isn’t balance; it’s just spreading misinformation. Trying to be “fair” by giving falsehood a seat at the table actually leads to more confusion, not clarity. There’s a difference between staying open-minded and letting misinformation have a home. - The Pitfall of Seeking Perfection:
Ever found yourself paralyzed by options, just because none of them were perfect? Philosopher Voltaire famously said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” and I think this applies well here. Sometimes, waiting for a perfect solution keeps us from making meaningful progress. Known as the paralysis of idealism, where we reject better options simply because they’re not flawless. This is common in big decisions—whether it’s voting, climate change, or even just day-to-day choices. The truth is, the perfect option rarely exists, and inaction can sometimes do more harm than taking the best imperfect choice. “Good enough” isn’t settling; it’s realizing that progress, however small, is usually better than doing nothing. - Having Rights Doesn’t Mean Every Choice Is Ethical:
There’s a distinction between rights and responsibilities. Sure, we all have rights to make our own choices, but not every choice is equally responsible. John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle” reminds us that while everyone has freedom, that freedom is limited when it begins to harm others. Just because I’m free to shout at strangers doesn’t mean it’s morally justified. Choosing what’s good for society goes beyond what’s within our rights; it’s about being accountable to each other and choosing actions that make a positive impact. - Listening to Conscience and Moral Intuition: Finally, I think we can trust our conscience to help us know when something is off. Mmoral intuitionism, as philosophy suggesting, deep down, we know the ethically better choice, even when it’s uncomfortable. I haven’t had to spell out which side is “better” here because, if we’re honest with ourselves, our conscience often knows. Often, clarity comes without having to name “right” or “wrong”; our intuition knows which path helps the most people and brings us closer to shared values.
So, here’s to making thoughtful, impactful choices that move us in the right direction. Staying open-minded is valuable, but so is knowing when to lean on what we already know to be true. And maybe, the next time we’re in doubt, we can ask ourselves: “If I look back on this in a few years, will I feel good about the choice I made?”