Instrumental values and pineapple pizza

If we want our arguments to be persuasive, we need to appeal to the other person’s values instead of our own.

In my last post I talked about a workshop I attended on “skills for disagreeing better”. One key idea from the workshop that didn’t make it into the previous post is that people can hold different underlying values, and that understanding these differences can change how we approach disagreements. I want to dig deeper into that here. But first: pineapple pizza.

Some of the most heated debates I’ve been part of have been about whether or not pineapple belongs on pizza. It turns out that this is really a question of conflicting values. Here are some possible arguments for either side:

• Sanctity: “Pizza should be sacred. You don’t defile it with fruit!”

• Liberty: “People should be free to eat whatever they want. Putting pineapple on pizza is a personal choice!”

• Diversity/representation: “Pizza is a global food. Italian base, Canadian bacon, tropical fruit; it's a beautiful, multicultural meal!”

• Tradition: “There are pizza rules. You don’t break rules just because you can. It’s about principle, not pleasure!”

• Utilitarianism: “If putting pineapple on pizza brings more net happiness into the world than it takes away, it’s morally justified!”

Depending on which values you hold, some of these arguments will be more convincing than others. In general, we can be better at resolving disagreements if we learn what types of things other people value, and why they care about those things.

Instrumental and terminal values

People’s values can either be terminal values, things they inherently care about with no justification required, or instrumental values, things they want because they’ll help them achieve their other goals. For example, many people value money. But it’s almost always an instrumental goal to help them achieve something deeper, like security, freedom, comfort, or power. Recognizing if a value is terminal or instrumental can help you understand your own motivations more clearly and make more intentional decisions about how to pursue the things that really matter to you.

The “instrument” in instrumental values actually means “a tool or implement”, i.e., they are being used as tools to help you achieve your terminal values. But I thought musical instruments would make a better picture.

For example, the workshop gave a list of things that conservatives and liberals listed as their core values and concerns.

• Many conservatives value “free market capitalism as an engine of human progress”. Here, “human progress” is a terminal value that people inherently care about, while “free market capitalism” is an instrumental value that is used as a step towards achieving it. (Other values like individual freedom and personal responsibility also come into play.)

• A major concern of liberals is “abuses of free market capitalism that leads to exploitation and inequality”. In this case, the terminal values are something like “fairness” and “human wellbeing”, and preventing abuses of free market capitalism is an instrumental step towards achieving those goals.

Each side emphasizes slightly different values (e.g., freedom versus fairness), but they’re both trying to do what's best for the people around them.

I think that the most interesting disagreements take place at the level of instrumental values. If you can convince me that an instrumental value I have is not actually going to help me reach my goals, then I'll gladly give it up. That kind of disagreement isn’t threatening any of my core beliefs, it’s just a chance to refine my strategy on what’s the best way for me to achieve my goals. And so it doesn’t matter if you convince me or if I convince you, it’s a win-win situation either way.

Moral reframing

Sometimes people really do have different terminal values. Even then, we can create a different kind of win-win situation if we can agree on an action that achieves both our goals. But for that discussion to be productive, we need to appeal to the other person’s terminal values, not our own.

• On environmental issues, liberals often focus on arguments about preventing harm to marginalized groups, because that's what they care about. But they would have a much easier time convincing conservatives to care if they focused on conservative values, like maintaining personal responsibility for our actions and keeping our country’s natural resources pure.

• Conservatives often consider religious freedom to be a terminal value that doesn’t need any justification. While many liberals feel the same way, those who don’t see it as a core value might be more persuaded if it’s reframed as a civil liberties issue, where religious freedom is a way to protect minority religions from discrimination.

This idea of using communication that appeals to the other person’s moral values instead of your own is called moral reframing. It has been repeatedly shown that moral reframing makes arguments more persuasive. As a nice side benefit, moral reframing forces you to actually understand what the other side cares about, and I suspect that doing this will decrease political polarization and make our conversations more civil.

Conclusion

Moral reframing actually works! In what is probably my most significant opinion shift in the last month, I became convinced to support the rights of people who prefer pineapple on their pizza. I was formerly a staunch opponent, because I had only heard the argument “but it tastes good!” which to me was clearly and obviously false. But when I came across the liberty and utilitarian arguments above, I became convinced that being more accepting towards people who put pineapple on their pizza will support my terminal values. And even though I disagree with what they do, I will defend to the death their right to pineapple their pizza!