In Praise of Polarization

Polarization is widely condemned as a force tearing societies apart. Pundits warn that political division is deepening to the point of no return, with some fearing civil war in countries like the United States. The assumption? That polarization leads only to chaos and conflict. But what if we’ve been thinking about it all wrong? What if polarization isn’t the disease—but the cure?

Existential Icebergs: The True Source of Our Crisis

Most assume our divides are political or economic, but I argue the crisis is existential and moral. The collapse of traditional institutions, religions, and shared social structures has stripped us of a collective moral compass. Once, the world seemed neatly ordered—there was up and down, right and wrong, dictated by divine or cultural authority. Now, as each old certainty falls, we find ourselves morally adrift.

If there is no shared foundation of right and wrong, then what hope do we have for reaching political or social consensus? Without agreement on first principles, we are locked in an endless war over surface-level issues, unable to resolve conflicts at their core.

More Polarity, Not Less

The current approach to political discourse is failing because neither side is convincing the other. Instead of resolving tensions, both left and right are entrenching deeper, escalating the conflict, and wielding bigger rhetorical and political weapons. If our battles are producing only gridlock, it suggests we are fighting at the wrong level.

When faced with an impasse, the best approach is to step back to a deeper level of agreement. Political battles will never be won through sheer force of argument—they must be built upon a shared moral foundation. Before we can fix our politics, we must address the deeper moral disorder that underlies it.

Survey the Wreckage: Facing Our Existential Crisis

We must acknowledge where we stand: in a world of deep existential uncertainty. Many have abandoned traditional religion, others believe we live inside a simulation, and humanists claim morality is a construct necessary for social function. Meanwhile, despair is widespread—people numb themselves with social media, consumption, and entertainment, avoiding the fundamental question: what truly matters?

If moral compasses point in completely different directions, no political or social consensus is possible. The left and right scream at each other not because they disagree on policies, but because they no longer agree on what is good. Until we address that, political conflict will remain an unresolvable shouting match.

A New Approach: Moral Discourse

We need a way to talk about morality without descending into tribal warfare. A productive first step? Rebuilding a shared moral framework.

For the technically inclined, I’ve created an open-source project on GitHub to construct a secular, rational moral code: https://github.com/moralcodex/moralcode. But recognizing that GitHub isn’t for everyone, we need a broader method to explore shared moral ground.

One approach is deceptively simple: list moral precepts with someone you disagree with and see where you align. You don’t have to start from scratch—borrow from the Ten Commandments, ask AI to generate a list from world religions, or draft your own. Tick the ones you both agree on. Cross out the ones you don’t.

Most will find surprising agreement—likely around 80%—forming the basis of a shared moral north pole. If two ideological enemies agree on 80% of fundamental morality, then their political conflict is merely a secondary consequence of deeper alignment issues.

Rediscovering the Moral North Pole

My hypothesis is simple: most people, across cultures and ideologies, would agree on a vast majority of moral principles if stripped of political baggage. By re-establishing a common moral reference point, we might stop engaging in political trench warfare and start building toward a functional future.

A second hypothesis follows: 80% of our political, social, and economic battles are symptoms of moral misalignment. The left and right aren’t just arguing about taxes or social policies—they are fighting over what constitutes virtue, justice, and goodness itself.

Imagine a QAnon shaman and a radical culture warrior meeting on the street. If they engage politically, they may come to blows. But what if, instead, they discussed basic moral principles? They might realize that their compasses are more aligned than expected.

The Only Way Forward

The current cycle of shouting louder isn’t working. We are at an impasse. It’s time to acknowledge that none of us hold absolute knowledge about the nature of reality. But if we can reconstruct a shared foundation of right and wrong, we have a fighting chance at navigating the future without tearing each other apart.

Polarization is not the enemy—moral disorder is. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can start fixing the real problem.