Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How to handle moral disagreements
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
in Philosophy
She lists 3 ways we can handle moral disagreements, 2 are common the last is a different way she proposes.
Confrontation - Moves the overall societies moral norms forward but leads to bad picnics.
Tolerance (live and let live) - Good for picnics but bad for social moral norms
Engagement - The way I understand it you use moral disagreements to challenge your own views by engaging with the other arguments in an open and honest way. It opens a dialogue and sets an example that challenging moral views is something one can do. It also makes sure you understand the other views and you're not just opposed to some straw man version.
0
Comments
There's always a hand-grenade....
To be honest with you, I would have thought option 3 was obvious....
I find that a lot of people don't want to engage in discussion or debate at all. Even if I am just there to listen and learn their point of view, people are always on the defensive and rarely want to openly discuss anything. It's hard to listen to their side when they won't share it beyond name calling and making assumptions about what they think you believe even if you haven't said anything, lol.
hmmm.
A student of Goldilocks and the 3 bears?
"engaging with the other arguments in an open and honest way"
That sounds nice, but let's see how we engage moral conflicts in reality.
"I think trans people should be able to use the public restroom that fits their identity. Otherwise someone who looks, acts, and identifies as a woman is forced to walk into a men's room, and conversely someone with a beard who identifies as a man is forced to walk into the women's restroom. Laws prohibiting trans from using the restroom they want are not moral and make no sense."
"Well, I think it's the guy's fault for insisting on prancing around wearing a dress and if we let people use whatever restroom they want, pervert men will be sneaking into women's restrooms to molest women. I have a moral duty to protect my wife and daughters from perverts like that trans guy claiming he's a woman."
OK, now both sides have been open and honest. They've engaged. Now what?
I think the people who are discussing need to already have a common value of respect and care for each other. Ideally this would happen between all of us. Realistically, it does not. I can have gentle moral discussions with my children or my parents, because we know that even if we disagree, we still love each other and that won't change because of a differences in values. I debate issues with my children quite often, and neither of us comes away with feeling rejected or hurt or made to feel stupid. But that give and take (I think) has to be present on both sides and you can't make someone else approach things from that direction.
I do try to approach things that way (though I am not successful all the time, for sure), but most people are not willing to investigate their values in that way. They enter every discussion with their heels dug in. You can tell by their facial expressions, their body posture. They might as well have their fists up ready to fight, because that is how they enter the discussion. When they are that way, I just don't go there. I don't get into moral fights with anyone. I just tell them I don't want to talk about it because they are not truly open to listening to anything else, they only want to argue their side to defend their own values. They rarely persist or argue that point.
Open and honest regarding the others point of view, otherwise it is really just a nicer form of conflict. I'd say that a dialog has been opened by listening to the other side first. I'm sure like @karasti says there still isn't any movement in the moment. I'd hope that at least setting an example of openness and planting that seed is a viable 3rd option.
She also asks for opinions on 4th or more ways to handle moral disagreement. Do you see any other way to move the ball forward?
I found these words from the Abhaya Sutra on right speech appropriate:
Even in the cases where one is saying things that are factual, true and beneficial, it is best to know when to say them. At certain times people are open to a statement that might be a challenge to their views, or if it comes from the right person, someone they respect.
It is actually very difficult to change people's views. Even when you can strongly reason and support an argument in favour of a certain position, most often people don't admit that they are wrong unless you totally destroy their position as well. And even then, if it happens you will have met a comparatively reasonable man.
I think moral conflict is not always unavoidable or bad, and that understanding the other person's point of view doesn't mean you can find a way to compromise. Sometimes people are just plain wrong and what they're doing is immoral and you have to make a stand. Beyond that I don't know of any way around conflict.
Is it so or not, that....
The degree to which our own ego is not encouraged to represent us, is the degree to which other folks don't feel compelled to be holding up their own flags of identification.
I think that within a practice, just as body and mind can be one, & self and other can be one, all sentient forms of existence can also be experienced as one integrated state of sentience.
Skillful means really illuminates itself when we begin to see that we have never had an ego that was ours to encourage or discourage that was ever innately separate from anyone elses.
Here, a practice transcends self and other, as much for ignorance as it's opposite.
Here, morals can just be another word for a Buddhist practice.
The other thing I see a lot is that a discussion might start out open (and I notice this a lot here and elsewhere online) with people asking honest questions and listening to the answers. But what eventually happens is that one (or both) sides thinks that their reasoning is so compelling that if they discuss it well, you will agree with their point of view. then they just start repeating themselves in circles in apparent disbelief that their way of explaining their values wasn't sufficient to bring you to their side. I think more often than not when we think we are being open to discussing morals what we are really doing is saying "Explain to me why you have your beliefs." And I don't think we should be demanding other people explain their beliefs just because they are different from ours. I think a lot of the time we invite that discussion solely because we already know our stance, and in arguing against theirs, we solidify our own. I don't think most people who ask do so seeking actual understanding. They are demanding explanation.
@Karasti
Yes and....
I think that moral teachings have a better chance of being understood through a personal demonstration of our living them, than by whatever we may say or write to others about them.
Great points @karasti and @how
So maybe the Buddhist 4th way is to lead by example, at least in interpersonal relations. I'm not so sure that is sufficient to lead to social change so in some circumstances political action is required.
For anyone interested in this thread scroll down on the video's You Tube comments, its remarkably civil and educated, especially for You Tube.
A skilful moral position does not encourage the expression of a polarity.
Here is where right speech may involve:
It's usually not a thread I've started but I've fallen into that trap being both antagonist and protagonist. Where I fall victim to the loop is usually when I feel my point is being misrepresented either on purpose or because I've failed to explain it properly.
Sometimes the other party seems so sure of themselves that I want to be able to see it from their side and sometimes I'm looking for a rip I can stick my finger through.
Moral disagreements can strike a nerve because usually it has to do with beings hurting each other and if no harm is actually done then the hurt comes from the passing of judgement.
The fourth way is dictated by wisdom, not methodology. Wisdom includes confrontation, tolerance, engagement and many other potential solutions to what is not a problem except to those busy with 'self development'.
So examples of the fourth way might include:
malamatiya enactment used in Sufism
http://www.chishti.ru/path-of-blame.htm
redirection