While it can certainly be difficult engaging in a civilized and productive debate with an individual who has a differing viewpoint from your own, I find that to especially be the case when their argument comes from nothing but a moral perspective.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with an individual defending their beliefs of what is right and wrong; however, this is typically accompanied by a black-and-white manner of thinking, which makes it next to impossible to reason with them beyond their limited moral scope.
I find that allowing our preconceived notions of morality to determine our opinions limits our willingness to expand our knowledge with regard to such issues, which could result in the evolution of those very opinions.
A strong emotional attachment also seems to often times be present to one's moral views, devoid of evidence to support such beliefs. Even if evidence debunks such an individual's opinion, emotion tends to trump facts.
This is why I rarely pull the morality card in debates. The concept of morality tends to be personal and emotional, which can both complicate matters when attempting to engage in a civilized debate. Not only that, but while some morals can be said to be both timeless and universal, that's not always the case. What's seen as moral today may not have been viewed as moral 50 years ago and what may be seen as moral in one part of the world may not be viewed as moral in another. So who's one to really say their beliefs are 100% moral and not another's?
In this day and age, both Republican and Democratic politicians consistently play the morality card, as it let's the public know where they stand on certain issues, and provides for easy talking points. However, I think both parties do themselves and the country a disservice by engaging in this pointless back-and-forth moral banter. The issue of abortion may be the best example of this. It's one of, if not the most hot-button political topic right now (for a while). Republicans consistently say it's moral to protect the unborn's rights. Democrats consistently say it's moral to protect women's rights. This limits the dialogue, the options, and the possibility of moving this country forward on the issue (and others). When Republicans say their position is the moral one, that insinuates the Democrats' position is the immoral one and vice versa. How can the two sides come to an effective compromise when they're constantly saying, "I'm right and you're wrong"? What the two sides should be doing is setting their morality cards to the side and trying to engage in civilized discourse regarding the matter. I, for one, don't take a moral stand one way or the other on the abortion issue. As a man, I don't feel it's my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, however, I also think it'd be best for the country to see a drop in unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually-transmitted diseases. How can we accomplish both? By not taking away women's reproductive rights, providing comprehensive sex education across schools all over the country, including contraception coverage on women's employer-based healthcare plans, and providing people with easier access to contraception. This would allow women to maintain their reproductive rights, increase sexual awareness, decrease unwanted pregnancies, decrease abortions, and decrease sexually-transmitted diseases. While the die-hard "pro-lifers" may not be 100% satisfied with the compromise, I'd like to believe they would see this as a step in the right direction, and that the "pro-choice" crowd would as well.
Morality and science are quite similar yet quite different, for science can help one decide their morals, yet many choose their morals long before facts showcase them to be true or not, and in the latter case, some select their morals in spite of scientific findings. Not only that, but like with the certitude of some studies, morals can change with more thought and reflection as well. When it comes to debates, though, both in Congress and out, one should stick to common sense, logic, and consistent findings in studies over black-and-white morals, for how moral is it to impose one's changing sense of right and wrong on another or the entire country when science, common sense, and logic dictate otherwise?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with an individual defending their beliefs of what is right and wrong; however, this is typically accompanied by a black-and-white manner of thinking, which makes it next to impossible to reason with them beyond their limited moral scope.
I find that allowing our preconceived notions of morality to determine our opinions limits our willingness to expand our knowledge with regard to such issues, which could result in the evolution of those very opinions.
A strong emotional attachment also seems to often times be present to one's moral views, devoid of evidence to support such beliefs. Even if evidence debunks such an individual's opinion, emotion tends to trump facts.
This is why I rarely pull the morality card in debates. The concept of morality tends to be personal and emotional, which can both complicate matters when attempting to engage in a civilized debate. Not only that, but while some morals can be said to be both timeless and universal, that's not always the case. What's seen as moral today may not have been viewed as moral 50 years ago and what may be seen as moral in one part of the world may not be viewed as moral in another. So who's one to really say their beliefs are 100% moral and not another's?
In this day and age, both Republican and Democratic politicians consistently play the morality card, as it let's the public know where they stand on certain issues, and provides for easy talking points. However, I think both parties do themselves and the country a disservice by engaging in this pointless back-and-forth moral banter. The issue of abortion may be the best example of this. It's one of, if not the most hot-button political topic right now (for a while). Republicans consistently say it's moral to protect the unborn's rights. Democrats consistently say it's moral to protect women's rights. This limits the dialogue, the options, and the possibility of moving this country forward on the issue (and others). When Republicans say their position is the moral one, that insinuates the Democrats' position is the immoral one and vice versa. How can the two sides come to an effective compromise when they're constantly saying, "I'm right and you're wrong"? What the two sides should be doing is setting their morality cards to the side and trying to engage in civilized discourse regarding the matter. I, for one, don't take a moral stand one way or the other on the abortion issue. As a man, I don't feel it's my place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, however, I also think it'd be best for the country to see a drop in unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually-transmitted diseases. How can we accomplish both? By not taking away women's reproductive rights, providing comprehensive sex education across schools all over the country, including contraception coverage on women's employer-based healthcare plans, and providing people with easier access to contraception. This would allow women to maintain their reproductive rights, increase sexual awareness, decrease unwanted pregnancies, decrease abortions, and decrease sexually-transmitted diseases. While the die-hard "pro-lifers" may not be 100% satisfied with the compromise, I'd like to believe they would see this as a step in the right direction, and that the "pro-choice" crowd would as well.
Morality and science are quite similar yet quite different, for science can help one decide their morals, yet many choose their morals long before facts showcase them to be true or not, and in the latter case, some select their morals in spite of scientific findings. Not only that, but like with the certitude of some studies, morals can change with more thought and reflection as well. When it comes to debates, though, both in Congress and out, one should stick to common sense, logic, and consistent findings in studies over black-and-white morals, for how moral is it to impose one's changing sense of right and wrong on another or the entire country when science, common sense, and logic dictate otherwise?
Comments
Post a Comment