Two Moralities

I have been wrestling with the notion that ND (neurodivergent) and NT (neurotypical) people live under different sets of moral obligations.  I have deep concerns about suggesting that different sets of rules apply to these two different segments of the human population, partly because I am still conflicted about whether, and to what extent humans should be sub-categorized separately.  On the one hand, I am worried that clarifying and solidifying the lines will result in more prejudice, hostility, and genocide. (Does anybody want to argue that these concerns are overblown, here in America?  No?  I didn’t think so.). On the other hand, I don’t want to suggest a Plato’s Republic, where NT’s are the merchants and workers, and ND folks are the judges, teachers, engineers, philosophers and artists.  Nor do I want to reinstate Nietzsche’s chauvinism about ‘master’ vs. ‘slave’ moralities.  And yet, the philosophers surely have gotten something right. 

It may help to keep in mind that these distinctions begin with how the mind works, and manifest primarily in terms of mental health.  Only then do we ask about how different forms of life nurture and preserve mental health.  And then, after that, we can look at how the interactions between different forms of life result in certain societal structures.  We are not starting with some kind of idealism about the perfect just society, and then forcing people into boxes (or cubicles) in order to manifest that vision.  We are simply asking about how different kinds of people naturally function well. 

NT's naturally function as upholders of the social fabric.  They enjoy a certain flexibility in attention as well as a kind of general (i.e. non-specialized) competence.  They have discretion in what they want to think about and how they want to live.  Their thoughts and behaviors are largely guided by society, culture, and political institutions.  For NT’s psychological health really is about ‘adjustment.’  Their primary moral obligations are: 1) to preserve the smooth functioning of society through enforcing norms, largely through gossip, approbation of the righteous, and suspicion of outsiders.  2) Do more good than harm, through works of charity, hospitality, and generally trying to be ‘a good person’ according to the implicit standards embodied in the culture.  Because of the consistency in their cognitive styles, there is a body of wisdom about how to live that is sort of one-size-fits-most for NT persons, involving discipline toward oneself, respect for others, and loyalty to the community as a whole. 

I am well aware that my characterizations of NT’s often sound like caricatures.  But that is part of the point: NT’s naturally tend to ‘homogenize’ themselves with those around them, in terms of beliefs, body language, and preferences.  To whatever extent they diverge from societal norms, they tend to smooth over their internal rough edges, and doing so is not particularly harmful for them.  Among other implicit rules, social norms generally make it clear which divergences are acceptable, and even fashionable, and which are to be judged unwelcome or hostile.  NT’s are generally happy to comply, and expect others to do so as well. 

ND’s naturally function as explorers and experimenters.  Their thoughts and behaviors are primarily guided by their own personal experience.  Privately, this means that their moral obligations revolve around authenticity, harnessing and being true to one’s inner guidance.  Publicly, it involves seeking out and embracing new insights and perspectives in various domains: the sciences, the arts, and also in the political and social structures themselves.  Their ‘purpose’ is to find and incorporate new information into the collective body of knowledge, so that the community can grow and adapt to new dangers.   

All things considered, there is much less consistency among ND’s concerning what kinds of behaviors and practices will be healthy and sustainable.  The different diagnoses (ADHD vs SPD vs Autism, etc.) are really attempts to clarify the situations or experiences where there is a clash between a certain person’s cognitive style and the NT social regime.  But all ND persons, especially since ND’s usually have more than one diagnosis, will have to figure out for themselves where they fit in, and how.  This, I believe, is the highest moral imperative for ND people: to engage in disciplines of self-knowledge, unmasking, and truth-telling in one’s personal life, even (or especially) when such practices reveal tensions with NT society. 

There will invariably be some conflict between those whose intuitions support the status quo (even when the status quo has become corrupt and hypocritical), and those whose intuitions are based on lived experience (in a moral and economic regime which may or may not provide or endorse forms of life that promote their well-being). 

Such conflict isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  Society should be structured in such a way as to allow for healthy disagreement and debate.  Society should be capacious enough to support various forms of life, since such diversity makes for robustness, strength and flexibility in the body politic.  But in order to build such robustness into the culture, the language of morality needs to be able to account for the differences between NT’s and ND’s in a way that is affirming to both. We need each other, even if we don’t always understand other.