Civil Discourse and the Art of Disagreement

On the fourth installment of The Weekly, Ryan delves into the general topic of civil discourse—discussing the art of ethical and respectful disagreement, which often revolves around the golden rule.

The Art of Respectful Disagreement

Imagine if you were hanging out at a bar enjoying some cocktails with some friends. At the table next to you, you overhear an argument between a presumed carnivore and a vegetarian. The carnivore yells out, “you have to be a total idiot for thinking that eating meat is wrong!” In reply, the vegetarian stands up and, before walking out, yells back, “and you have to be a heartless, animal-hating murderer to eat meat.”

Other than feeling really awkward, if you were in this situation, you may have some questions floating through your head, like: is it possible to be friends—even really good friends—with someone who I disagree with on matters of great importance? Is there a right way and a wrong way to disagree with someone? Is it possible to speak of an ethic of disagreement? These are the questions that we will be tackling today!

 
•   Quick Note: I am assuming that disagreement, even on importance matters, is unavoidable. Have you ever met someone who you agreed with on every single issue or matter of importance? Apart from the possibility of living a life of complete solitude and seclusion, avoiding disagreement is impossible (because we are all unique and different), and attempting to avoid all people that you disagree with would be an act of extreme intolerance. So we need to learn how to deal with and handle disagreement, how to properly engage with people in the midst of disagreement. This is vital to the possibility of civil discourse, and it is vital to any good and healthy relationship.

Ethical Disagreement vs. Unethical Disagreement 

—Ethical Disagreement: thoughtful & civil

—Unethical Disagreement: unthoughtful & uncivil

Analysis:

•   Unethical Disagreement:

1. Unthoughtful (relates to our thinking): surface-level thinking; knee-jerk reactions; shallowness; uncritical & uncharitable thinking; hypocritical, inconsistent, and contradictory thinking

2. Uncivil (relates to our speech, both in terms of what we say and how we say things): sharp & biting; ridiculing, mocking, scoffing; antagonistic and hostile; inconsiderate, rude, mean-spirited; hateful

•   Lack of thoughtfulness and lack of civility are a recipe for unethical disagreement.

•   Personal Example: As a Christian, I will never have an issue with thoughtful and civil disagreement on the nature and identity of Jesus Christ, but I might get upset if you compare my Christ to a unicorn or the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.

•   Reasons for Unethical Disagreement:

1. Lack of well-reasoned argument (so I have to resort to ridicule or mockery)

2. Lack of maturity & character (I say inconsiderate and rude things because I’m an inconsiderate and rude person)

3. I simply mimic what I see around me (that’s what I see everyone else doing, so that’s what I do)

4. I don’t know how to engage thoughtfully and civilly with opinions I disagree with

•   Golden Rule: dealing with disagreements well revolves around this classical ethical imperative: treat others the way that you want to be treated; engage with others the way that you would want to be engaged with; and disagree with others the way that you would want them to disagree with you. If I strive to follow this maxim, I will most likely avoid poor engagement with alternative views and divergent opinions.

•   Civil Discourse & Good/Healthy Relationships:

—Unethical Disagreement obstructs constructive conversation and dialogue, while Ethical Disagreement enables people talk through and work through differences. “UD” prevents a relationship from ever forming or severely strains a relationship over time; “ED” enables a relationship to form and allows it to grow.

•   Qualifiers & Nuance:

—Importance of Thick Skin - just as a lack of thoughtfulness & civility is a problem in our society, over-sensitivity is also a problem.

—Context Matters – setting (formal or informal; with friends or people you don’t really know; joking/being silly or serious and trying to make a point); depth of friendship; heart, character, intent (more important than mere words is the condition of a person’s heart and the status of a person’s character; sometimes a person might seem like she is being unthoughtful and uncivil, but that isn't actually her intent); personal situation (burnt out, sleep deprived, going through a difficult circumstance, etc.); history & consistency (grace needed when something is said that is out of character or not in line with a person’s history).

•   Self-Criticism: I’ve been there, done that. There have been times in my life when I needed thicker skin; there have been times in my life when I have tried to engage with people during a season of burn-out and sleep deprivation, and that usually hasn’t ended well! Because I am a passive and non-confrontational person, but also because I have a really high pain tolerance, I’ve had a tendency to allow little annoyances and subtle injustices to build up over time. Then, when the moment is just right, when I’m burnt out or sleep deprived or on edge for some reason, I’ll snap or lash out. This is something that I had to learn about myself and something I have had to work on.

The Possibility of Civility & Friendship Amidst Profound Disagreement

•   Is it possible? Yes, it is possible, but it’s not easy! Here are some practical guidelines:

1. Disagreement must be ethical rather than unethical

2. Clear distinction between attacking a person and attacking an argument

3. Clear distinction between disliking or even hating an opinion vs. disliking and hating the person holding the viewpoint

4. Base respect & value for the individual is a necessity (for both mind & character)

5. True tolerance is a necessity

6. Reciprocation is a must (all of these things need to be reciprocated; they need to be practiced by both parties)

7. Shared character is also very important (you can have radical differences in opinions and beliefs, but if you don’t have shared character, a friendship is going to be difficult)

• If both parties do these things, then both parties have character, and it is actually their character that allows them to do these things!
• But if one person has high character and the other does not, then there will be a lack of reciprocation of these principles, which will invariably chip away at the friendship over time.
• Friendships work when there is reciprocation—not perfect reciprocation, but reciprocation nonetheless; a one-sided relationship is not a friendship.

•   Concluding Statement: All in all, this is the way that Thinker Sensitive strives to engage in civil discourse, through ethical—rather than unethical—disagreement, and you can hold us to it!

Links & Sources

• "The Art of Disagreement" on Google Podcasts
• "The Art of Disagreement" on Apple Podcasts

• "The Art of Disagreement" on Spotify

• "Agree to Disagree: 7 Lessons on the Ethics of Disagreement," The Ethics Centre
  
• "Actually, It’s OK to Disagree. Here Are 5 Ways We Can Argue Better," The Conversation
• "CIVIL DISCOURSE 101," Milan Kordestani
• "For the Sake of Argument," Harvard Kennedy School
• Civil Disagreement: Personal Integrity in a Pluralistic Society, Edward Langerak
• "Civil Discourse and ‘the Dying Art of Disagreement,’" EdNC
• "Can Respectful Disagreement Bring Us Together?" New Approaches