Okay, I have a few thoughts on this question of the month. The topic can be approached from many angles. I am focusing on the issue of “rational discussion” as a method for resolving disputes, disagreements and conflicts in political as well as interpersonal situations. This angle is in contrast to the issue of rational discussion in other contexts, e.g., as a way of discovering things, brainstorming, forming social bonds. Those are perfectly good topics, of course, and maybe someone else has ideas they’d like to share on it.

As I look over what I’ve written below, it doesn’t seem like anything new, unusual or surprising. I think I’ve merely put into words a few obvious things that many or most people already know implicitly, though most people, I’d guess, haven’t bothered to articulate it to themselves, or to commit to acting in accord with these ideas, which many or most people would say they agree with, if asked.

1) When any dispute about what to do or how to view things arises, how is it decided? As I see it, there are only a few ways for the dispute to be handled. Either by action or inaction, purposefully or accidentally, a decision is made on what to do about some issue, what policy to enact, what view or proclamation to be settled on or publicly assented to. I’m thinking here mainly of political and public contexts, but I think this also applies to personal disagreements between two or more individuals.

When such a dispute arises, the final result will be that one of the views put forth by one of the interested parties will be settled upon as the right or best answer. Or, the view settled upon will be a hybrid of two or more of the views put forth by people. Either way, the question is this: in the process of deciding upon a view, how can the interested parties reach their decision? Here is the list I’ve come up with so far:

1. VIOLENCE- i.e., when someone uses violence to silence others or to compel others to adopt their views or policies.

2. THREAT- same as above, but instead of actual violence, it’s the threat of violence, harm, or of placing an inconvenience or burden on someone, in order to compel assent or shut them up.

3. IGNORING- - when someone ignores the disagreement or someone’s view on it, hoping that other person’s view won’t affect the final decision settled upon.

4. “RUSH TO JUDGMENT”- i.e., a decision is prematurely reached, for example, by forcing a vote or consensus or final decision before everyone has heard each other’s views, or before a sufficient amount of discussion or conversation has taken place. In other words, a decision is settled upon before everyone has done the hard work of knowing that the decision is actually the best one that can be reached.

5. MANIPULATION AND DECEIT: when someone deceives others or manipulates them as a way of getting their point of view accepted. This would include lying, bending the truth, presenting only some of the facts and opinions, name-calling, using social-pressure, making “straw man” arguments against others views, trying to make those who disagree with you look flawed or wrong or of poor character, and other such techniques we’ve all become familiar with.

6. RATIONAL DISCUSSION- having a full, open and fair discussion of the issue and the facts and opinions around it, using rational standards as the criteria by which to judge which views are the best in the situation at hand. This is the favored method, of course. Any given discussion isn’t completely rational or completely irrational; it is a matter of degree. Rationality is built into the structure of any language, so you cannot completely get away from it, even when you claim to do so. The best approach, the one that, in general, tends to lead to the best decisions, is one that not only promotes the resolution of the current dispute by rational means, but also promotes the ability of everyone to do so the next time a differing of views or dispute arises


The above list (including subtypes and combinations of those methods of dispute resolution), covers the limited number of ways of dealing with conflict, unless I’ve left something out. These different ways are not mutually exclusive. Any given disagreement can (and usually does) have elements of one or more of the above methods of handling a dispute, in varying proportions.


2) It will come as no surprise to you that I believe the first five methods of handling a dispute to be poor methods, and that it’s preferable in most or all situations to resolve disagreements by the last method, rational discussion. I think we should do our best to resort to the other methods as infrequently as possible and only as a last resort. One such exception might be, for example, that some decisions must be made so quickly that a full and open debate is impossible or counterproductive, but this is the exception, not the rule. I’m sure other exceptions exist.

One of the best reasons for all of us to commit to using rational discussion to handle disagreements is that all of the alternative, “poor” methods are, typically, immoral, since they involve harming others—blatantly or subtly—in avoidable ways. A second reason is that the “poor” methods all involve a process of decision-making that tends to produce lousy decisions and views (as compared to decisions arrived at by rational discussion), which in turn ends up harming people, wasting effort and resources, and/or limiting the benefit to ourselves and society we could be otherwise be enjoying.

A third reason is that, when we fail to resolve disagreements by rational discussion, people often get pissed off and feel that they’ve been the victim of an injustice. This increases the likelihood that future disputes will not be resolved by rational discussion, but instead by violence, threat, deceit, and so on. This is generally bad for everyone, even the “victors” (those whose views were settled upon). This tends to push personal relationships and society as a whole in the direction of a breakdown in the rule of law and, in the famous words of Thomas Hobbes, “a war of all against all,” making life more “nasty, brutish and short” for many people.