Moral Compass vs. Personal GPS
Navigating principles and preferences in our political culture
One of the most common sources of conflict in today’s politics and social issues, in my opinion, is the confusion between principles and preferences.
Principles are the bedrock of our beliefs—our guiding values that remain constant over time. They are fundamentally what drives us and are rooted in ethics and long-standing convictions.
In other words, our principles are meant to guide our moral compass.
Preferences, on the other hand, are flexible choices that can change based on circumstances. We can take practical considerations into account, or even personal tastes change as we mature and evolve.
Preferences act as our personal GPS, adjusting to changing routes while keeping us on course
When these two concepts—principles and preferences—become muddled, our debates become shallow, our arguments inconsistent, and our ability to engage in meaningful discourse erodes.
Understanding when to hold firm to principles and when to adjust preferences is essential for intellectual honesty, productive discourse, and perhaps most importantly - trust in our institutions.
While principles should be deeply held and consistent, preferences should evolve as we evolve or situations change. When we receive new information, when society progresses, or when circumstances change - it’s perfectly acceptable, if not wise, for our preferences to change, too.
I believe one of our biggest issues is we confuse the two all too often.
And that’s a problem.
Sometimes it’s out of innocence or ignorance, while other times - usually when it’s for political or personal gain - we purposely fail to make the distinction.
Current Examples
Free Speech
Principle: A firm belief in free speech means defending the right of all individuals to express their views, even if those views are offensive or controversial. If we truly value free speech, we will protect it regardless of whether we personally agree with the speech being expressed. We might believe that without free speech, we can’t keep our government accountable - and ultimately, we are better able to find truth in all other pursuits.
Preference: One may personally prefer that speech be civil, constructive, and free of offensive language - but that doesn’t mean they should seek to ban or suppress speech that you find distasteful.
Why does this distinction matter?
If we treat free speech as a convenience—defending it only when it benefits our side—we undermine its very foundation.
True commitment to free speech requires tolerating difficult conversations (and those difficult conversations are more likely to lead to ultimate truth) and protecting the rights of those with whom we disagree.
One can’t claim to love and support free speech but then silence voices that say things that make them feel uncomfortable.
Social Welfare
Principle: A belief that all people should have access to equal opportunities to grow and flourish, grounded by our God-given rights, and protected by law.
Preference: Holding the opinion that the government should support those who need help, or that the government should remove barriers so individuals can achieve financial and personal freedom.
Here’s another example where I believe most people hold similar principles. No one wants to see people struggle or get torn down in the cycle of poverty - despite what we hear from partisans.
While we may agree that a just society provides opportunities for all, how we achieve that goal—through government programs, private sector growth, or community initiatives—is usually a matter of preference, not principle.
We can and must have that conversation, because as long as it’s done in good faith and based on shared principles, we can achieve those goals—even with competing preferences.
Religious Freedom
Principle: A firm belief in religious freedom means defending the rights of all religions to practice openly, even if we don’t agree with their beliefs. It also guarantees the freedom from religion if one chooses.
Preference: The extent to which religion should be present in public spaces.
Why does this matter?
A person who values religious freedom ought to defend the right of all religions to practice, even if they personally prefer to see their own religious traditions publicly recognized.
One might prefer Christian prayers at public meetings but accept a policy that allows either no prayers or prayers from all religions to maintain fairness.
A city council member might prefer public Christmas displays (preference) but agree to allow displays from other religions—or none at all—to uphold religious freedom (principle).
This would be a fair and consistent exercise of one’s beliefs - letting others publicly recognize their religion does nothing to diminish one’s principles.
Supporting religious freedom consistently means ensuring that rights apply to all religions, even if that means compromising on the presence of your own religious traditions in public spaces.
Law and Order
Principle: A commitment to the rule of law means applying laws equally to everyone, regardless of political affiliation, social status, gender, ethnicity, or personal biases.
It means respecting the system we have in this country (even if you don’t like who’s in power); a legislative branch that creates laws, an executive branch that carries the laws out, and a judicial branch that interprets the legality of it all.
Three separate but equal branches of government, even if each one seems to be constantly finding ways to gain leverage over another.
Preference: Different policy approaches and government actions.
“Rules for thee, but not for me” cannot continue to be the norm.
This might be one of the most egregious examples of where we let our preferences betray our principles.
If the rule of law is a principle, it must apply regardless of political convenience. Otherwise, it's not a principle—it’s just a preference disguised as one.
If we believe in the Constitution and our system of government, we can’t change our preferences based on who is in office (it’s OK if my team issues this kind of executive order, but when yours does it they are “trampling on the Constitution”).
When our preferences start to run counter to our principles, it creates double standards which drastically weakens public trust and erodes the legitimacy of our institutions.
We can’t claim to revere the Constitution while discarding its principles for short-term political gain.
How this plays out in today’s society
Politicians, political parties, and - more frequently these days - political “influencers” all try to appeal to principles to rally support (or financial gain).
However, it seems easy to shift our principles as if they were preferences when it suits their interests.
Which would make them not principles at all, would it not?
Being the flawed political animals that we are, we often conflate the two in order to justify agreeing with and supporting “our team.”
Ultimately civil discourse descends into irrational bickering; we lose trust in our friends and neighbors (and sadly, even family), we turn into massive hypocrites, and we focus on “whataboutisms” rather than what is good and right.
We’ve probably always been this way to some extent, but with the advent of social media - where anyone with a phone or computer can have a megaphone to scream into their self-created echo-chambers - the problem is reaching a critical level.
What we need is more effective leaders in this world that distinguish between the two - knowing when to stand firm on principles and when to compromise and negotiate on preferences. (Reading about one leader in particular today is actually what inspired me to write this piece)
But perhaps even more importantly - we need to examine our own beliefs and reflect on the subject ourselves.
After all, one could argue that our political leaders we elect are often a reflection of who we are as a society (we are the ones who put them in office!).
So we have to ask ourselves…
Am I consistent in applying my principles - or do I mistake them for preferences?
Do I engage in constructive discussions with people who hold different views - recognizing that I can stand firm in my principles but can be willing to listen and compromise on preferences?
That maybe we can come to common ground without betraying what we hold dearest?
That maybe perfection can truly be the enemy of good?
Or scariest of all - do we ever sincerely reflect on the idea that maybe we are wrong - or that maybe we are the ones being hypocritical (regardless if the “other” is being hypocritical as well)?
Recognizing the difference between principles and preferences is crucial for personal integrity, productive debate, and responsible governance. While principles should provide consistency, preferences should allow for adaptability.
Here’s a good rule of thumb to consider.
If a belief is tied to fundamental values of fairness, justice, and rights, it is likely a principle and should be defended even when inconvenient. And it should be consistent, regardless of the situation.
If a belief is situational, tactical, or based on personal convenience, it is likely a preference, and being flexible about it is probably wise.
Or another test we can take to measure where we are on the principle vs preference spectrum - just look at the image below. If you’re OK with the first tweet but would be angry with the other two (or vice versa, this is a nonpartisan test) - be honest with yourself. Are you holding true to your principles?
This is important. This isn’t something that should be brushed off as “well, that’s politics” or “well, the other side does it, too!”
That’s intellectual and moral laziness at its worst.
The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.
Bad politics is best combatted with good politics.
Sure, maybe combatting bad politics with good politics isn’t always as effective - but fighting bad politics with bad politics only rewards politicians, pundits, and special interests - not average Americans.
And it certainly doesn’t make us any more virtuous or good.
Final Thoughts
If we are to move forward as a society, we must hold firm to principles while negotiating preferences in good faith. The real test of integrity isn’t whether we win political battles, but whether we remain true to the values we claim to uphold.
The values that make our country great to begin with.
We can find better ways to carry out the conversations we are having collectively as a society.
By holding firm to principles and adapting preferences where appropriate, we can navigate complex socio-political issues with moral clarity and practical wisdom.
We have to be able to do better. And since we can only control what we do as individuals—not the thoughts or actions of anyone else—it needs to start with us first.