For all intents and purposes (it’s a long story), I study philosophy at my school — one of those majors everyone knows is entirely useless. In my philosophy classes, however, I have learned at least one important skill: never accept a social/cultural/societal justification for something. There are principles behind everything we do and say. However, some actions are morally significant whereas others are not. For example, the reason we put napkins on our laps at the dinner table and the reason we don’t hit our younger sibling are in two different categories; the former is social and will vary between cultures, and the latter is moral because it causes pain.

While many differences across cultures are just that —

cultural —

there are certain practices that are not equally valid. For example, whether it is polite to slurp your soup or whether it is not are two equally valid practices and have no moral significance across cultures. However, to take an extreme example, genocide is not right for one country and wrong for another. It’s simply wrong.

Of course, there are practices less black and white than these examples, but the important part is this: in every part of my life, from dealing with teachers, school administrators and friends, I have encountered this strange set of justifications for opinions or actions that, to be frank, are not valid reasons for anything. I get circular logic that upon first glance appears to be a reason, but upon further speculation is nothing but a nicety or a socially accepted reason with no logic behind it. In this article, I want to talk about several of the most common phrases that I’ve come across that fall in this vein.

1. We treat everyone the same.

This statement is skin-deep and bears no relevance to how you are treating someone. I’ve encountered it both with large administrations and with teachers in the classroom. The crux of the matter is that what’s important is that you treat everyone well, and you can easily use this statement even if you are treating everyone poorly. If you treat everyone poorly, you cannot point to the fact that you are treating them the same to somehow justify that they are not being wronged.

In my experience, this most commonly happens when people either erase individuals and individual cases that should be treated differently (i.e. a late homework penalty for a student who has been very ill) or in cases where this phrase is used to justify blanket injustices (i.e. any student who forgets their homework will be subject to humiliation). An ill student should not be held accountable for work during their illness and no teacher has the right to humiliate a student. The teacher in either of these cases wrongs the student whether they do the same for everyone else or not. That they do the same for everyone is no excuse, morally speaking, and even probably makes the situation worse.

2. That’s the policy.

This one can fall into the treating-everyone-the-same category. An unfair policy cannot be excused by the fact that it applies to everyone. It does, however, have another frequent use. While this phrase can explain the actions of lower-ranking employees who have their hands tied by the policy and must follow it or lose their jobs, I have had too many conversations with administrators who, when pressed about why they follow a certain course of action, revert back to the fact that it is the policy of the organization. This is frustratingly circular — to have a conversation with the person in charge of creating policies citing a policy as the reason for a policy.

To disentangle: a policy is made for reasons, the policy is not itself a reason. For example, a policy of not allowing students out of the cafeteria during recess may be in place in order to ensure the well-being of the students, so they do not wander off and get hurt. The reason the students are not allowed out of the cafeteria is so they do not get hurt, not that it is the policy of the school not to let them out. When a policy is not working, does not make sense in a given situation or is generally unfair, an administrator cannot point to the policy as a reason for itself.

Personally, I am a huge fan of acting in the spirit of a policy. That is, acting on the reasons for the policy rather than the policy itself. Where the reasons for the policy do not apply, one should disregard it. For example, if the students in question are eighteen years old, it makes little sense to keep them confined in a cafeteria for their own safety. If they are five, the policy makes sense. The school should allow the eighteen-year-olds to wander free and keep the five-year-olds under supervision. That would be in the spirit of a policy designed to keep students safe.

3. It makes me uncomfortable.

This is a phrase I hear frequently around identities, particularly marginalized or less-known identities. Of course I’ve heard it surrounding homosexuality, but even people I know in the queer community are guilty of discounting more marginalized identities this way. I’ve heard it surrounding polyamory, transgender, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, BDSM etc. I often hear a qualifier here: “I have no problem with gay people, but polyamory just makes me uncomfortable. I couldn’t get on board with that.”

I firmly believe all emotions are valid. They do, however, need to be examined cognitively. When we have a negative reaction to something, it often lets us know something is important. It is very often useful in indicating to us that something is not okay. It is also very useful, however, at simply letting us know something is different. That is why you have to go one step farther and ask yourself why you are uncomfortable.

For example, Most people are uncomfortable with pedophilia. If you examine this emotion further, pedophilia is dangerous to children and can never be consensual. Therefore, this is a justified reaction. The reason pedophilia is not okay is that it is harmful and non-consensual, and that makes us uncomfortable. However, many people are also uncomfortable with polyamory. Upon further speculation, polyamory between consenting adults has no harmful effects on the individuals or on others. In the same way that no one can tell a gay man, “No, you’re wrong, you don’t love another man,” what right does anyone have to tell someone in a polyamorous relationship that they are not in love with two people?

It’s important to take an emotional statement like this one step further and examine whether there are legitimate reasons for your discomfort or whether that discomfort comes from an unfamiliarity with the identity or act in question — which usually falls directly under the category of societal expectations.

4. It’s always been done this way.

Please. I refuse to even dignify this with a proper explanation. Then perhaps you’ve always done it wrong.

5. Let’s agree to disagree.

That depends. Does what we’re talking about have to do with my identity? Does it hurt or erase people? If so, then no, let’s not.

As much as multi-faceted and complicated opinions can have many valid angles, there are cases where two opinions on a matter are just not equally valid — whether that be because one opinion is more fact-based or because one results in hurting others and the other does not. It is not equally valid, for example, to believe in the existence of global warming as it is not to. One opinion is firmly supported by science and the other is not.

---

There are many more statements like these, but these happen to be the ones I’ve encountered most. It’s so easy to slip into giving non-reasons. It is so easy for society to stick words in our mouths and for us to regurgitate them without ever noticing it. It’s important to move through life intentionally and to make sure at each turn that you are both giving and receiving valid reasons for anything you do or that is done to you. Otherwise it can be so easy to mistreat others or to be mistreated and to never even be fully aware of it.