A Tale of Two Triangles: An Interlude

If you’ve journeyed with me this far, we’ve been through some pretty dark times together. We’ve seen how Pressure, Opportunity and Rationalization can conspire to lead people to do some pretty awful things.

However, the three sides of the Fraud (Human) Triangle are actually neutral, just as the Nature Triangle is neutral:

Pressure is simply that which pushes on us to act. Opportunity is simply the means by which we can carry out the action. Rationalization is simply what we tell ourselves, before, during and after.

In fact, the Human Triangle is the source of much that we would reflect upon as good. It’s the application of the ethics framework (Your Center of Moments, both parts of the Golden Rule, and Living Well Together) that helps us make choices. And the hope — aspiration is a fancier word — is that these choices will prove to be good ones in the long run.

Every year, my wife and I work a 50x25 foot garden plot in our local community garden. There’s a lot to it: setting a 150-foot perimeter fence, digging plant beds, erecting a bean structure, cucumber frames, squash tunnel, potato bins; then planting, watering, weeding, managing pests. One year, a woodchuck ate through all our kale. Another year, voles destroyed our bean crop by eating the seeds before they had a chance to sprout. Last season, peculiar rains and weather patterns compromised our tomato yield.

In late October, we tear it all down and store the gear for the winter, bringing it all out again the following spring and wondering which crops will do well this year, and which will be a bust.

Why?

In centuries past, this would all be done to secure a food supply. (And they did it far more efficiently and over more land than we could ever manage.) Today, while that’s certainly a part of the equation (we grow organically, so we know as much as is possible these days what we’re eating), we’re also motivated by being able to donate our extra produce to the local food bank. It isn’t much, compared to what they get from farmers and food distributors. But it helps.

If we apply the Human Triangle to our actions, it goes something like this. There is hunger in our community. What can we do about it? (Pressure) We have access to a community garden and are learning more and more about how to garden; and we have our tools and our labor. (Opportunity) Providing fresh vegetables every week for several weeks during the growing season is our way of helping feed hungry families. (Rationalization)

Some would look at what we do as not cost-effective. They’re right. But (rationalizing here) there is value in getting out in the open, doing physical work, and being able to provide for others, however small and money-losing the proposition may be. It would be easier (and cheaper) simply to write a check to our local charity.

On an individual scale, we are all policy makers. What works for us wouldn’t work for others. But think about larger-scale problems. Certainly the pressure is there to do something. And for every challenge, there are likely opportunities. What complicates this simple model is not necessarily that we don’t know what to do, but that there simply are too many things to do. In a complex world, which actions need our immediate attention? Complicating matters further, how do we choose among opportunities (which we could also call competing courses of action)?

And then there are the (some would say inevitable) unintended consequences. “Even the very wise cannot see all ends.” (1) People describing history are often obsessed with explaining outcomes, even though (as Johan Huizinga states in The Idea of History), people living through history do not know what these outcomes will be (2), much less their far-reaching effects. A lot of political hay is made by one side accusing the other of not thinking through consequences. (3)

What all this means is simply that the Human Triangle is a tool, a way of reflecting back to us our application of ethics in a complex world. That we are imperfect and will make flawed choices is inevitable. That we demand perfection of our leaders is folly. We all must do the best we can. When all is said and done, all we truly have are each other and the fruits of the world we inhabit. Best to live well together while we can.

==========================

(1) Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf speaking to Frodo early in the tale, when Frodo wishes that Bilbo had killed Gollum, because Gollum deserved to die:  “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” --Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Lord Of The Rings: One Volume (p. 59). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition..

There is fantasy, there is literary writing, and then there’s Tolkien. Expect me to do more on this in Creative Squirrel.

(2) John Lukacs selected this quote to define his approach to his excellent snapshot of World War II history, The Duel, in which he described the eighty days between May 10 and July 31, 1940, as Churchill defied Hitler, Britain being the last nation standing in Europe. The book contributed to the making of the movie, “Darkest Hour.”

(3) And a lot more could be said here, but it would likely take us off track. Something to be wary of: when there is an unintended consequence, or “things don’t work out” as intended, it’s all too easy to assume bad intentions on the part of the policymakers. A healthy respect for (and sympathy toward) each others’ imperfections would be useful here. We crave certainty and are lousy at forecasting. So attacking and correcting the outcome might be more effective than slinging mud at those who implemented the solution. Much easier said than done, and it leaves one open to potential exploitation by those whose ethics may not incorporate the three elements I’ve argued for here. That’s a whole other ballgame — the building and tearing down of trust — far outside this scope.