Black and White Thinking

General Philosophy
1

In this post, I would like to define black-and-white thinking as the two extremes of a spectrum of opinions.

Generally, I hear professors in somewhat philosophy-related subjects, such as political science, refer to “grey” thinking as harmful to societal progress.

But I find myself too conflicted with both sides to form a firm opinion. I feel both sides’ arguments are valid in any context. One side may be seen as more ethical or more humanitarian. But I feel one’s assumption that this white or black side is somehow “better” than the opposing side is just societal bias that’s been built into us.

This type of thinking makes me feel as if I’ll go nowhere in life, as I loop back to the same “ehhh, I can’t have a firm opinion on this, both sides are bad and good.” I would like to know what you all think. Do you believe that choosing a side is good? Do you think the ability to maintain neutrality in every context, while still understanding for all, is good or harmful?

1 Like
2

Maybe it depends on how high the stakes are.

Some things are black and white. For example, murder is never okay.

But allowing another to live according to their own beliefs? Well, that is no skin off your nose. There is not only one way to live.

What kind of examples did you have in mind?

3

But someone could still argue that murder is ok, for “justified” reasons, such as “they abused me.”

When is violence okay? Is violence justified if it’s needed for a democratic uprising against a dictatorship? Or, should we all maintain “treat others the way you want to be treated?”

There’s countless examples I could provide, but for any problem, I cannot seem to pick a side.

I do feel there are some undeniable aspects of life we must embrace, though–How diversity cannot be prevented, and therefore we must learn how to embrace it.

1 Like
4

I disagree. I can think of several reasons why it would be okay to commit murder. They are extreme cases though.

5

This type of thinking keeps you out of a rut. It forces one to consider both sides of an issue instead of being completely closed minded.
Consider the abortion issue. The two sides are almost always argued in black/white terms, with neither side willing to acknowledge the points made by the other side. Hence no progress is made.

I disagree with this unless murder is explicitly defined as ‘killing that’s not OK’, a definition which in no way suggests which kinds of killing are OK or not.
I can definitely think of situations where it is OK.

They abused me

is probably not one of them.

6

This is a great philosophical question, one I return to from time to time in my life.

I hope there’s no “correct” answer to this either, but I’d like to share my approaches.

First, it’s worth noting that neutrality or “grayness” (as you called it) is never constructive. Nothing worthwhile is ever created or destroyed by those who are neutral about a particular phenomenon. Even the greatest and most balanced things are always created by people who sincerely believe in their own rightness.

Therefore, for an individual, remaining “gray” in all areas is counterproductive: after all, it begs the question: “Were you yourself?”

Dig deeper into ontology, and it becomes clear that the very continuation of life tomorrow (as a conscious choice) is a life-affirming stance. And this is clearly not neutral. Therefore, any choice is no longer neutrality in the broad sense.

The next aspect is more socio-biological: joining another opinion, group, ideology, society, or anything else is sociobiologically justified, because it happens in the name of security. It’s very comfortable to simply choose a side. Having a separate opinion is much more valuable, both for the brain’s cognitive function and for conserving energy.

Although the first two premises seem contradictory, they are not: in this context, different levels of grayness are being discussed: passive grayness and active grayness.

The next approach is the basis for “gray” judgment. It should be noted that since this is an extremely energy-consuming process, it practically does not occur in minds that lack basic needs. Gray thinking is an elitist phenomenon, often inaccessible to the average person concerned with their daily bread.

Based on all of the above, I have decided not to take an extreme position or choose a “middle path” in everything. Because that would be an extreme again :joy:

7

I understand this stance, but I still believe one can be in a grey area in the context of wanting to live even if they choose to not kill themselves that day.
I also agree with your claim that, if one chooses to go on to the next day, they are taking a side. I think this also applies for everything, taking a strongly opinionated side that “chips are good” can create a butterfly effect of reasoning which will define your stance on life.

I also agree with this, but I feel morally wrong choosing any side. I see the butterfly effect I mentioned earlier if a size is chosen.

8

When it comes to non-trivial questions there’s nothing wrong with sitting on the fence however if there’s consequences to a serious decision then being in the grey area does not yield any benefits.

9

I think, in general, I agree. However, for action-guiding judgement, black-and-white really is what’s needed lest we flounder in inaction.

I don’t think your 'murder is always wrong" claim is fundamentally bad, both given the definition of murder and what you’re wanting to discuss - but I do think that’s only going to be good insofar as it motivates an action in someone which is, to the best of their knowledge, a good action.

Otherwise, grey thinking is definitely needed. Black and white thinking is why several people on both sides of politics are (untimely)dead in recent months.

10

What you’re referring to is often highlighted as an inadequate conceptualisation. It’s generally called binary thinking or dualistic thinking. Richard Rohr, a radical priest, has been banging on about its inadequacies for many years.

Rohr argues that dualistic thinking divides the world into rigid opposites: good and bad, us and them, which he sees as an immature stage of spiritual development. He believes this either–or mindset leads to judgment, exclusion, and moral superiority. Rohr proposes “nondual” thinking instead, which holds tension and complexity without collapsing everything into simple binaries.