![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Comments
| << Vaccines: Killing Children; Killing Humanity | Why Atheism? >> |
4 months ago
I've long hated the idea of agreeing to disagree. Doing that is simply intellectual laziness. Nothing more and nothing less. It means that the mental effort of following the paths of reasoning and examining the evidence are more than you are willing to exert. In typical disagreements, there is a stronger weight of evidence for one proposition over an opposing one. In that case, if agreement cannot be reached, one or both parties are acting irrationally.
Fortunately, I just discovered someone who agrees with this position and wrote a whole post on the subject.
You both should understand that "agreeing to disagree" is a sign of mutual disrespect and contempt. Rationality imposes a strong imperative to reach agreement and this must drive your interaction.
Fortunately, I just discovered someone who agrees with this position and wrote a whole post on the subject.
You both should understand that "agreeing to disagree" is a sign of mutual disrespect and contempt. Rationality imposes a strong imperative to reach agreement and this must drive your interaction.
Add Comment (5 comments)
Polite society 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Overall I agree with the spirit of your point. A disagreement isn't a sound logical conclusion. The idea of agreeing to disagree sometimes comes off as a morally relativist ("what's true for me isn't always what's true for you").
However, sometimes, the disagreement comes down to a core believe system. A debate between a capitalist and socialist, for instance, could come down to the questions of, "Do you believe in the concept of private property?" "Do you believe that I have an obligation to help my neighbor?" This could come down to axioms, and I suspect even to personal psychology. These aren't questions that are easy to tackle. In the long run, I still agree with you; I don't think that the question should stop there, in fact I think it's where it really starts to get interesting. However in the interest of time and energy, for a short-term debate I think it's ok to give up at some point and just crack open another beer instead.
A similar issue is, sometimes arguments can get heated. Sometimes people are attached to their ideas, sometimes it's a subject that affects them personally. And so on. I think that in a polite society it's important to know when to drop a subject, and that sometimes includes agreeing to disagree.
Overall, sometimes it's just not worth arguing too much. There's only so much we can convince each other of anyway, might as well stop and enjoy our time here (unless you're with someone who really enjoys arguing).
However, sometimes, the disagreement comes down to a core believe system. A debate between a capitalist and socialist, for instance, could come down to the questions of, "Do you believe in the concept of private property?" "Do you believe that I have an obligation to help my neighbor?" This could come down to axioms, and I suspect even to personal psychology. These aren't questions that are easy to tackle. In the long run, I still agree with you; I don't think that the question should stop there, in fact I think it's where it really starts to get interesting. However in the interest of time and energy, for a short-term debate I think it's ok to give up at some point and just crack open another beer instead.
A similar issue is, sometimes arguments can get heated. Sometimes people are attached to their ideas, sometimes it's a subject that affects them personally. And so on. I think that in a polite society it's important to know when to drop a subject, and that sometimes includes agreeing to disagree.
Overall, sometimes it's just not worth arguing too much. There's only so much we can convince each other of anyway, might as well stop and enjoy our time here (unless you're with someone who really enjoys arguing).
Reply -- Dan
3 months, 2 weeks ago
Dropping a subject for now is not the same as agreeing to disagree. I can say, "I still believe that you are wrong, but accept that it is not prudent to continue pursuing this line of discussion at this time."
Even the supposed axioms that you propose come down to truths and falsehoods about the nature of life and the nature of man.
Now on _value_ judgments, you can simply say, "I think that your values are odd, but given your values, your POV makes sense," as I had to in a discussion this weekend. I encountered a person who was pro life and had a solidly reasoned stance _given_ a presumption of the inherent value of a human life which is equal among all humans regardless of parasitic status.
Even the supposed axioms that you propose come down to truths and falsehoods about the nature of life and the nature of man.
Now on _value_ judgments, you can simply say, "I think that your values are odd, but given your values, your POV makes sense," as I had to in a discussion this weekend. I encountered a person who was pro life and had a solidly reasoned stance _given_ a presumption of the inherent value of a human life which is equal among all humans regardless of parasitic status.
Reply -- Brandon
| << Vaccines: Killing Children; Killing Humanity | Why Atheism? >> |
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson
Different Ordered Preferences 4 months ago
As products of our differing environments and possible genetic memories, we cannot possible always agree. We value different outcomes differently.
I can understand your argument and agree it is logical given your values. However I might ultimately reject it because my values do not align with yours.
Reply -- Jacob Tomaw
4 months ago
I cannot say that you're wrong in how you choose to spend your money, that is up to your values. On the other hand, I can say that you're wrong about the existence of God, just as you can say that I'm wrong about the nonexistence of all gods.
We may not be able to reach an agreement about the latter topic, given how much time it is _worth_ (value choice) investing in the discussion, but we will also not simply accept it as an unresolvable disagreement.
Reply -- Brandon
Fine then 3 months, 4 weeks ago
Reply -- Todd