Thanks for laying all this out so nicely! I could see this being a good start-of-course primer for a gen-ed philosophy class or something like that.
Your post reminded me of "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, a really interesting "moral psychology" book I read earlier this year. The book is only a descriptive, not prescriptive, work about morality, definitely much more psychology than philosophy, but I think you might find it interesting - and that it might make some of these "people being difficult" reactions make more sense. In short, while modern Western secular progressives tend to say all their morality depends only/mostly on "fairness" and "compassion," most cultures have some form of "loyalty," "respect for authority," and "some things are sacred/profane" as moral axioms in their own right. Haidt argues that some form of these moral axioms are hard-wired into our psychology, or at least most people's psychology (including modern secular Western progressives).
I think keeping this in mind makes arguments like the ones you describe make more sense. If you're arguing with someone about same-sex marriage, and the hypothetical arguer says "That's not the original definition of marriage" and gets touchy about examining this point, I bet what's going on there is a high degree of "respect for authority." In this case, I think it's more like "respect for tradition," and - even if they can't consciously articulate it - I bet this is what's driving a lot of their arguments.
(I know, I know, I'm psychologizing my opponent... but I think there's something to this!)
I like all the guidelines you lay out for what an individual can practice in their own attitudes and their own arguments, but I wonder what a follow-up list might look like for the practices you can have that will help your interlocutor be more reasonable. What questions can you ask, or what practices can /you/ do, that make the other person feel more understood and respected so they're more comfortable having some of their deeply-cherished beliefs challenged?
I have no idea if I'd be this level-headed in the moment, but if I were arguing with someone who was insisting on "Don't deviate from the 'original' definition of marriage," I would hope I'd ask them, "Why is adhering to the 'original' definition of marriage important to you? What's special about it being 'original?'" And I wouldn't mean this as a "gotcha" kind of way where I then argue that it's all silly; I'd genuinely want to hear them talk about why this is special to them - and I suspect I'd eventually get at this person articulating "Respect for authority/tradition" as a moral axiom. Once both he and I understand this, I bet we'd have a much more fruitful discussion.
I bet you have much more practice than I do at making these conversations go well, so I'd like to hear what you think.
Hey Ben, thanks for the very thoughtful comment. There's lots of great stuff here!
I haven't read *The Righteous Mind*, though I'd like to read it sometime soon. I'm familiar with some of Haidt's other work, and I always find what he has to say interesting. Your comment has certainly given me a sense of how some of his ideas might help explain what's going on at a deeper level in cases like the same-sex marriage argument described earlier. It seems very plausible to me that something like the "respect for authority" or "respect for tradition" axiom/intuition/orientation was indeed at work there.
Though it's been some time and I don't recall all the details of the same-sex marriage conversation, I seem to recall being a bit flummoxed and unsure of how to proceed after the other didn't want to engage with the hypothetical I offered. Looking back, I wish I had responded in the way you've imagined responding, namely by asking the other, not as a "gotcha" but in a spirit of good faith, to say more about what it is about tradition, adhering to "original definitions," etc. that's important to him. Had I responded that way, I have no doubt that the conversation would have been more fruitful in the end.
I really like your question about "what a follow-up list might look like for the practices you can have that will help your interlocutor be more reasonable. What questions can you ask, or what practices can /you/ do, that make the other person feel more understood and respected so they're more comfortable having some of their deeply-cherished beliefs challenged?" Here are a few thoughts that come to mind as I reflect on this:
First, I think that being willing to concede when one's interlocutor makes a reasonable point (or even simply to acknowledge, before responding, when the point is a challenging one to respond to) goes a long way in helping dispel any feeling of being enemies who are fundamentally at odds with one another, or who can't be trusted to argue in good faith.
I also think that it often helps to occasionally summarize, in as charitable a way as one can, what one sees as the other's current point or argument, and then to confirm whether one has understood it properly before responding. Seeing someone else describe one's view in a highly charitable way--ideally, a way that makes one think, "I wish I myself had thought of putting it that way"--is a strong indication of approaching the discussion in good faith, and this tends to make people feel more comfortable having their beliefs challenged, knowing that the other isn't interested in playing dirty, going for cheap gotchas, etc.
A further thing that I believe can help is even simply to occasionally describe the broader dialectic in a clear and non-confrontational way--something like, for instance, "At the start, it seemed that we simply differed on issue X. As I've listened more to your view, though, it's come to seem that the source of our disagreement on issue X is ultimately issue Y. I believe that the right view on issue Y is such-and-such, whereas, if I understand your view correctly, you believe that it's this-other-approach. Getting clear on which of these is correct seems like the crucial way toward making progress on our original question." Even when it's clear that two people disagree strongly on the first-order issues, they might agree on what the broader dialectic is, which I suppose can serve as a helpful reminder to them that there's at least something they agree on.
Anyway, there are probably more ideas that could be added, but those are just a few off the top of my head. If you can think of any that have worked well in your experience, let me know, because I'm always interested in ways of making progress in this area, reducing polarization, etc.
Thanks for laying all this out so nicely! I could see this being a good start-of-course primer for a gen-ed philosophy class or something like that.
Your post reminded me of "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, a really interesting "moral psychology" book I read earlier this year. The book is only a descriptive, not prescriptive, work about morality, definitely much more psychology than philosophy, but I think you might find it interesting - and that it might make some of these "people being difficult" reactions make more sense. In short, while modern Western secular progressives tend to say all their morality depends only/mostly on "fairness" and "compassion," most cultures have some form of "loyalty," "respect for authority," and "some things are sacred/profane" as moral axioms in their own right. Haidt argues that some form of these moral axioms are hard-wired into our psychology, or at least most people's psychology (including modern secular Western progressives).
I think keeping this in mind makes arguments like the ones you describe make more sense. If you're arguing with someone about same-sex marriage, and the hypothetical arguer says "That's not the original definition of marriage" and gets touchy about examining this point, I bet what's going on there is a high degree of "respect for authority." In this case, I think it's more like "respect for tradition," and - even if they can't consciously articulate it - I bet this is what's driving a lot of their arguments.
(I know, I know, I'm psychologizing my opponent... but I think there's something to this!)
I like all the guidelines you lay out for what an individual can practice in their own attitudes and their own arguments, but I wonder what a follow-up list might look like for the practices you can have that will help your interlocutor be more reasonable. What questions can you ask, or what practices can /you/ do, that make the other person feel more understood and respected so they're more comfortable having some of their deeply-cherished beliefs challenged?
I have no idea if I'd be this level-headed in the moment, but if I were arguing with someone who was insisting on "Don't deviate from the 'original' definition of marriage," I would hope I'd ask them, "Why is adhering to the 'original' definition of marriage important to you? What's special about it being 'original?'" And I wouldn't mean this as a "gotcha" kind of way where I then argue that it's all silly; I'd genuinely want to hear them talk about why this is special to them - and I suspect I'd eventually get at this person articulating "Respect for authority/tradition" as a moral axiom. Once both he and I understand this, I bet we'd have a much more fruitful discussion.
I bet you have much more practice than I do at making these conversations go well, so I'd like to hear what you think.
Hey Ben, thanks for the very thoughtful comment. There's lots of great stuff here!
I haven't read *The Righteous Mind*, though I'd like to read it sometime soon. I'm familiar with some of Haidt's other work, and I always find what he has to say interesting. Your comment has certainly given me a sense of how some of his ideas might help explain what's going on at a deeper level in cases like the same-sex marriage argument described earlier. It seems very plausible to me that something like the "respect for authority" or "respect for tradition" axiom/intuition/orientation was indeed at work there.
Though it's been some time and I don't recall all the details of the same-sex marriage conversation, I seem to recall being a bit flummoxed and unsure of how to proceed after the other didn't want to engage with the hypothetical I offered. Looking back, I wish I had responded in the way you've imagined responding, namely by asking the other, not as a "gotcha" but in a spirit of good faith, to say more about what it is about tradition, adhering to "original definitions," etc. that's important to him. Had I responded that way, I have no doubt that the conversation would have been more fruitful in the end.
I really like your question about "what a follow-up list might look like for the practices you can have that will help your interlocutor be more reasonable. What questions can you ask, or what practices can /you/ do, that make the other person feel more understood and respected so they're more comfortable having some of their deeply-cherished beliefs challenged?" Here are a few thoughts that come to mind as I reflect on this:
First, I think that being willing to concede when one's interlocutor makes a reasonable point (or even simply to acknowledge, before responding, when the point is a challenging one to respond to) goes a long way in helping dispel any feeling of being enemies who are fundamentally at odds with one another, or who can't be trusted to argue in good faith.
I also think that it often helps to occasionally summarize, in as charitable a way as one can, what one sees as the other's current point or argument, and then to confirm whether one has understood it properly before responding. Seeing someone else describe one's view in a highly charitable way--ideally, a way that makes one think, "I wish I myself had thought of putting it that way"--is a strong indication of approaching the discussion in good faith, and this tends to make people feel more comfortable having their beliefs challenged, knowing that the other isn't interested in playing dirty, going for cheap gotchas, etc.
A further thing that I believe can help is even simply to occasionally describe the broader dialectic in a clear and non-confrontational way--something like, for instance, "At the start, it seemed that we simply differed on issue X. As I've listened more to your view, though, it's come to seem that the source of our disagreement on issue X is ultimately issue Y. I believe that the right view on issue Y is such-and-such, whereas, if I understand your view correctly, you believe that it's this-other-approach. Getting clear on which of these is correct seems like the crucial way toward making progress on our original question." Even when it's clear that two people disagree strongly on the first-order issues, they might agree on what the broader dialectic is, which I suppose can serve as a helpful reminder to them that there's at least something they agree on.
Anyway, there are probably more ideas that could be added, but those are just a few off the top of my head. If you can think of any that have worked well in your experience, let me know, because I'm always interested in ways of making progress in this area, reducing polarization, etc.