How to Talk to People With Whom We Disagree
Here are some tips
I frequently debate the ethics of assisted death on Twitter with the goal of attaining truth, building bridges, and convincing people. To that end, I try to validate people’s concerns while making my points with rigor and concision. Importantly, I try not to insult them, gaslight them, or belittle their worries. Doing those things, in my experience, only makes people dig in their heels.
Besides the goals just listed, I also want to address a larger systemic problem—social and political polarization. I don’t know about you, but I hate how polarized our society is. I hate the tribalism. I hate the aggression. All of that frustrates me because it goes against almost everything I value. I think the ability to have respectful disagreements is an important way to address this problem. If you feel the same way, then I hope you see the value of this article.
Here are 10 tips on how to have these conversations.
Always care about the truth, otherwise, you may say things that are false in an attempt to defend your position. Always admit when you’re wrong.
Assume that everyone’s opinion contains a portion of the truth, which means you should not assume that your opinion contains all of the truth.
Don’t question people’s character. Assume they’re sincere, truthful, and good.
Don’t use insults.
Validate people’s concerns by saying things like, “I hear what you’re saying,” “I think there’s truth to what you’re saying,” and “You’re not the only one who thinks that.”
Emphasize what you agree with. This also signifies that you acknowledge that they’re saying something true.
Knod while they talk.
Use terms like, “I think,” “I feel,” and “I suspect.” This signifies that you’re not stating something as absolute fact.
Ask clarifying questions to get a better understanding of what the other person is saying. This shows that you care about their thoughts, and it also helps prevent you from strawmanning their argument.
When you disagree, say something like, “Hmm, I’m not so sure about that,” or “What about this concern?” or “I’ve heard some people bring up this objection. How would you respond?” This shows disagreement but not in the form of direct confrontation.
By saying “I’m not so sure,” you’re expressing an element of ignorance, which is less confrontational. According to my experience, the more you express how sure you are, the more the tension escalates.
By bringing up an objection from other people, you also make it less confrontational because then the dynamic isn’t necessarily between you two but between two positions that many people can hold. So there’s less of a personal target on either interlocutor. It structures the conversation like it’s cooperative, like you’re working together to attain the truth.
(Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting people adopt strategies to manipulate others. The goal isn’t to trick people. Rather, I want people to be authentically respectful while engaging with others with whom they disagree.)
The first three tips are about your disposition, meaning that they have as their object our tendencies of action. So we should generally behave as if (1) we care about the truth, (2) everyone’s opinion contains a portion of the truth, and (3) people are sincere, truthful, and good.
Tips #4-10 are specific examples of what you can do if you embrace #1-3.
Example
Because tips only go so far, I’d like to show an example of a discussion I had with someone on Twitter about assisted death. (I’m not trying to toot my own horn here; I just think it’s helpful.)
The context was that there are medical students who are in favor of assisted death but who aren’t willing to participate themselves. I said that being in favor of people having the option of assisted death is different than being willing to do it yourself. They’re conceptually different.
Then, a stranger responded.
(I’ve edited the conversation for consistency and clarity purposes.)
STRANGER: Being unwilling to do it yourself implies and demonstrates a qualitative judgment. Human reactions of disgust and unease are relevant.
ME: I’d also agree that disgust and unease are relevant. I see them as starting points for philosophical reflection.
(Here I’m emphasizing agreement, in accordance with tip #6.)
STRANGER: Taboo, cultural inheritance, myth, are all the essential lodestones here, rather than philosophical reflection which relies solely on logical inference. Which does not and cannot account for all of the relevant variables. In this case, there is a taboo being broken, and taboos are there for a reason. Once it’s crossed then there is nothing left except arbitrary goalposts that can be moved. We are already discovering what that means in Canada. And discovered in Nazi Germany.
ME: Moral positions must be able to be defended by reason. Taboos, traditions, myths, and the like are by themselves insufficient and cannot substitute philosophical thinking. In fact, when there is sufficient reason to reject a taboo, the taboo ought to be rejected.
STRANGER: Moral positions must be able to be defended by reason is a moral position. The centrality is the moral position and this can be defended by reason, but is ultimately born of something else. People largely know what’s right and wrong instinctively. Hence the taboo. The people at the coal face, and their intuitive responses, are instructive here.
ME: Agreed. People generally know what's right and wrong, but I don't think this is true in all cases. A philosophical argument for x is a stronger reason to allow x than a taboo against x is a reason to reject x. If x is wrong, you should be able to present a convincing argument.
(Here again, I’m emphasizing agreement, per tip #6.)
STRANGER: Mine are that there won’t be an end to the iterations of killing patients once the central taboo is lifted. That the act of sanctioned killing of a patient is corrosive to the physician/patient relationship at its most fundamental level. That this will empower monsters, and monstrous outcomes.
ME: Many people share those concerns. The general taboo against killing is justified because killing most often violates people's autonomy and is harmful. But this is not necessarily true. Hence, some killing is justified.
(This is an example of validating his feelings, per tip #5, and an example of agreement, per tip #6.)
I also don't see why it'd be corrosive to the physician-patient relationship, given that the values of autonomy and well-being are already central to medicine.
I suspect the disagreement here is that you don't think death can be good for the person who dies.
(Here I say, “I suspect” in accordance with tip #8.)
STRANGER: Most of your insights here appear to be based upon your “suspecting”. When I treat palliative patients my aim is for them to have a good death, as free of suffering as possible. I do not prolong treatment when it is futile and only likely to prolong suffering. And yes, that is hugely different from killing a patient. A child could intuitively grasp that. I can meet all of your philosophical arguments with my own. But ultimately that’s what it comes down to. If you did this job you would (hopefully) know that. Some won’t, and will make it their specialty. There are always some.
(I don’t know if you can tell, but this response is more confrontational because he’s saying I’m ignorant due to lack of first-hand experience. Any time I’m faced with confrontation, I try to de-escalate.)
ME: Palliative care serves an important role and can be credited with relieving much suffering, but not all suffering can be treated that way.
(Here I’m trying to agree while showing that I acknowledge that what he does is important.)
If we think that it's possible for continued life to be bad for the pt, it seems reasonable to adopt the position that death can be good.
In other words, the reasons why letting die can be justified are the same for killing.
There's a conceptual distinction between killing and letting die but not a moral one. Also, the killing vs. letting die distinction is only relevant when killing is a harm, but not all killing is that. If it respects the pt's choice and death is prudentially good, it's okay.
STRANGER: It is never reasonable to plan a patient’s death and kill them. The implications of this go far beyond patient suffering. You will either intuitively grasp that or you won’t. All of the arguments that arise from that are literally incidental.
(At this point, the tension is still a bit high.)
ME: Do you think it's reasonable to plan a pt's death via withdrawing care?
(You may think I’m asking a clarifying question here, per tip #9, but I’m not. The purpose of this question is to try to highlight a possible inconsistency in his beliefs, which could come off as confrontational.)
STRANGER: You don’t plan this. You react to the situation. And I will say again - one course of action does not include killing someone. Which isn’t an empty abstraction. Ask soldiers. But then there are people for who it is…
ME: We do plan deaths, though. For instance, the family wants to wait until the son flies in before withdrawing care.
STRANGER: Maybe when you’re talking about a brain-dead patient on life support. If this was a cancer patient (far more common) then I wouldn’t wait. This is all incidental. My objection is to the act of killing.
You either see it or you don’t. “That reason alone can never be the motive to any action of the will, and secondly, that it can never oppose passion in the direction of the will.”
ME: I believe in the power of reason to enlighten us about the nature of morality. If we simply relied on our traditions and taboos, there would never be moral progress. For example, same-sex relations would still be disallowed.
STRANGER: Profoundly disagree. The acceptance of same-sex relations was brought about by the work of reason employed to support instinctive (spiritual) first principles. In this case that love between two humans is self evidently good. Tradition and taboo are stores of wisdom. We should be mindful of that. When it comes to assisted dying, we simply haven’t been. It’s been implemented before the implications have been widely accepted and considered. It’s been forced through by an ideological minority.
ME: I think what we just said is consistent. Using reason to support first principles is using the power of reason to enlighten us about the nature of morality.
It's certainly true that our intuitions play an important role here, and moral disagreements often come down to conflicting intuitions. But reason does have the power to change people's intuitions.
I also agree that tradition often contains wisdom. There's a reason why that tradition is in place. Traditions are like fences. There's a reason why someone put it up. So if we want to tear it down, we better have a good reason. I think philosophy can sometimes do that.
(Here I’m going a bit further than expressing agreement per tip #6. I’m actually elaborating on his position to make it sound even more plausible. This is an example of steelmanning.)
STRANGER: Yes. But I feel you are too enamored by the reason and do not feel the weight of the first principles. I can see it from your POV. I have a degree in philosophy. But I am telling you it is very different when you are doing the job of a doctor, and responsible for these patients. At least in my experience.
(Notice that the tension is lower now. The STRANGER said, “At least in my experience,” which is an example of tip #8. He’s stating something not as absolute fact.)
ME: I think there's a conflict of first principles. Mine are respecting autonomy is good and reducing suffering is good. What follows is that death can be good because it can be harmonious with those two first principles.
I think first-hand experience is extremely valuable, so I truly appreciate you having this discussion with me. I know practitioners also feel worse about withdrawing care compared to withholding, even though the current bioethical standard says they're morally the same.
(This comment is expressing agreement again per rule #6.)
(It should be noted that the STRANGER liked this comment, and then started to like my other comments.)
STRANGER: I agree with those principles, but my concerns are the unintended consequences.
ME: You're not the only one. Many people are concerned with the slippery slope and abuse cases. There's certainly a lot to say about this topic, and I don't think Twitter is the best medium for it. But as you can imagine, I don't find the objections convincing.
(This is an example of validating his concerns, in accordance with tip #5.)
ANOTHER STRANGER: Well, I would say you guys did a great job in this medium. Fascinating back and forth. I agree with both of you, to some extent. I believe very strongly in personal autonomy and I believe it is a person’s right to commit suicide. I also agree that it is a very slippery slope.
(Both the person I was talking to and the other stranger ended up following me on Twitter.)
Conclusion
I believe this example shows how utilizing my tips can enable people to have respectful disagreements. When used properly, they help keep tensions low, which is ultimately conducive to the goals of attaining truth, building bridges, and convincing people.
Relatedly, the fact that we walked away from this discussion with more mutual understanding should count as a success. I don’t see it as a failure because I didn’t convince him that I was right. It’s practically impossible to change someone’s mind with one conversation, especially about such a controversial issue. So, it’d be unreasonable to set the bar that high.
Anyway, I hope you found this article interesting. The project of fostering respectful conversations is important to me, so expect to see more articles on it in the future.