Johan, thank you for this reflection.

What stayed with me after reading was not so much the specific argument about Sam Harris, but the broader question of how difficult it is for any of us to remain consistent when our moral principles encounter the complexity of lived reality.

I often find myself wondering whether motivated reasoning is less a failure of intelligence and more a reflection of our deep attachment to particular narratives. We all carry stories about who we are, who belongs, who is threatening, who is victimized, and what justice requires. Those stories help us navigate the world, but they can also narrow our field of vision in ways that are difficult to recognize from within.

The older I get, the less interested I become in determining which side is guilty of motivated reasoning and the more interested I become in understanding the conditions that make all human beings vulnerable to it.

What seems especially challenging in conflicts marked by profound trauma is that suffering itself can become tribalized. Compassion begins to flow unevenly. Historical wounds become selective lenses. The suffering of some people becomes vivid while the suffering of others fades into the background. Yet if there is any moral principle worth holding onto, it may be the one you point toward: suffering is suffering.

I do not mean that context, history, intent, or power are irrelevant. They matter enormously. But they matter within a larger moral framework that refuses to place different values on human lives.

Reading your piece left me reflecting on how difficult genuine self-examination is, particularly when the conclusions threaten our identities, communities, or cherished beliefs. Perhaps intellectual integrity is not the absence of bias, but a continual willingness to notice when our principles are becoming contingent on who is involved.

In that sense, the challenge you raise is one that extends far beyond this particular conflict. It is a challenge for all of us.