My family and I are traveling some in July and a few days ago we passed a spot on our travels where, last year, I got really lost and turned around. Ah, memories.
It wasnāt a good memory because I got really angry and frustrated. And some of this frustration got directed at Jana. Nothing big, but we both were reminiscing about the tense exchanges we had.
As I thought about what went wrong that day my reflections eventually settled on Immanuel Kant. Yeah, Iām weird like that. Marital spats make me think of deontological ethics.
Hereās where my reflections took me.
First, Iām not a stereotypical guy. That is, I readily admit when Iām lost. Mainly because I get lost so much there is no real point in pretending. Jana has the better sense of direction. So I generally ask her about how to get to places.
But while Jana has the better sense of direction she really doesnāt like maps. I, conversely, find maps easy and intuitive. So itās sort of a paradox. She hates maps but has the great sense of direction. I get lost but love maps. Go figure.
Anyway, last year when I got lost I did what I usually do, I said something like āIām lost.ā Iām kind of obvious that way.
Being lost I hand Jana my iPhone and ask her to pull up Google Maps and get us located with the GPS.
This is Janaās nightmare scenario, me handing her a map and barking questions at her because Iām lost.
Needless to say this doesnāt go well. Iām asking for help and sheās struggling to provide it. We keep making wrong turns and my temper rises. A lot of it is directed at myself. Some of it is directed at the gods. But some of it is directed at Jana. I want her to navigate me out of this mess but sheās not doing it.
This year, as we drove past the location of this mishap, I tried to reflect back to understand why I got so mad at Jana. We were lost because of my mistake. And while I handed Jana my iPhone I knew that she was going to struggle to make heads or tails of the map. So Iām expecting something of her that I know is unreasonable. And yet I got angry at her. Why?
In thinking about how to ground our ethical decisions Immanuel Kant famously came up with the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative goes something like this: Act in such a way so that you can will your actions to become a universal law. Basically, a deed is ethical if you can confidently assert that everyone should follow your example. For example, you shouldnāt steal because if everyone followed your example itās pretty clear that the social fabric of society would fall apart.
While I like the categorical imperative it find it a bit too abstract for daily use. But what I do use a lot is Kantās alternative formulation of the categorical imperative: Treat people as ends not as means.
I thought of that while I was reflecting on last yearās marital spat. The reason I was getting upset at Jana was because I was treating her as a meansāa way to get me unlostārather than as an end in herself. I wanted Jana to function in a certain way to help me with something I wanted, needed, expected, or desired. And when she failed in that function I got frustrated.
And frustration is diagnostic here. Freud said that frustration is the feeling we have when our goals are thwarted. When we are blocked from reaching a goal we get frustrated. Think of being late and stuck in a traffic jam. Thatās having your goal blocked. And we all know what that feels like.
So I was frustrated with Jana because I wanted to get unblocked, I wanted to get pointed in the right direction again. The frustration was diagnostic that I was treating Jana as a means, as a tool, as a functionary to get to my goal.
Another way to say this is that I was being selfish. By treating Jana as a means toward my end I had placed myself at the center. I was the end, and she was the means.
As I stepped back from this incident and took in a wider view it dawned on me that this is the way it is everywhere in my life. When I notice myself getting upset at people itās generally the case that Iām treating them as a means rather than as an end. The person Iām interacting with is viewed in functional terms. Are they helping me get what I want? And if not, well, I get frustrated.
You hear Christians say a lot āItās not about me, itās about God.ā I get that sentiment, but I often donāt know what it means.
So how about this tweak? āItās not about me, itās about the person standing in front of me.ā That is, one of the things we can to do to remove ourselves from the ācenterā of the universe is to stop treating people as means to our ends. For treating people as means is the very definition of self-centeredness, it is using people to satisfy your own needs. But when we treat people as ends in themselves we become, of necessity, de-centered. Their needs and desires become the focus, not ours.
Not that any of this is rocket science:
1 John 4.20-21
Anyone who says āI love Godā and hates his brother is a liar, since no one who fails to love the brother whom he can see can love God whom he has not seen. Indeed this is the commandment we have received from him, that whoever loves God, must also love his brother.