Engaging in disagreements over the nature of the public good
and how to achieve it is an essential element of citizenship in a democracy.
Good argument is not something to be avoided. Argument is the surest path to
truth, fair agreement, or acceptable compromise. At the very least, an argument
can establish clear parameters around which two parties may continue to
disagree.
The following consideration of moral disagreement was written
by Robert Fullinwider:
The Intellectual Virtues. Moral disagreement has
the best chance of being resolved through reasoned agreement in a context of
mutual respect and good-faith argument. In good-faith argument, each side
puts forward claims and reasons it genuinely believes provide the strongest
rational support for its views. Mutual respect is most in evidence when each
side to a disagreement practices the virtues of charity and humility in
argument.
- The Principle of Charity. This principle recommends
that we view our opponent's arguments and beliefs in their best light.
According to this principle, one should always look for the
interpretation or construction of our opponent’s arguments or
beliefs that give them the best chance of being true.
- The Principle of Humility. This principle tells us to
assume that, regardless of their strength, our own arguments and
beliefs are likely to be one-sided, partial, and incomplete in
important ways and can benefit from being tested against opposing
arguments and beliefs.
- The Principle of Tolerance. This principle
acknowledges that reasonable people can remain in disagreement about
many important moral issues and urges us to respect differences and
support policies for getting along with others where agreement cannot
be reached.
From Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education, Charles
N. Quigley and Charles F. Bahmueller, editors (Calasbas, CA: Center for Civic
Education, 1991) p. 174.
Virtues
