Show the same empty plot of land to six different people and something interesting happens. One sees beauty. One sees a good place to exercise. One sees money to be made. One thinks immediately of a parent's declining health. One imagines a school the neighbourhood actually needs. One quietly wonders what the land, and the planet underneath it, is even for.
Six perspectives, each perfectly natural, and each quietly running underneath a huge amount of daily thinking without ever being named directly. Likes, what feels simply agreeable. Health, what's actually good for the body, which is why bitter medicine still gets swallowed. Profit, the instinct to give less and take more. Justice, the sense of humane responsibility owed inside a relationship. Order, a pull toward working for some larger common good. And truth, the widest of the six, concerned with whether something actually exists in reality and why, which tends to subsume all the rest.
Here's the asymmetry worth noticing. Likes, health, and profit shift constantly, from person to person, and even within the same person over time. What feels agreeable today may not next year. Justice, order, and truth behave very differently. They don't vary the same way, because they were never built on personal preference in the first place.
Most everyday decisions run almost entirely through the first three, likes, health, profit, without ever consulting the second set at all. A choice gets evaluated by whether it's enjoyable, whether it's good for the body, whether it's profitable, and rarely by whether it's actually just, orderly, or true.
Worth trying, the next time a decision feels unusually difficult, is simply naming which of the six perspectives is doing the deciding. Very often, the difficulty clears up the moment it becomes obvious that likes and profit have been quietly running the show while justice and truth never got consulted at all.