How to Disagree Well

a post by by Stephen Abram for the Stephen’s Lighthouse blog

“The hierarchy of disagreement is a concept proposed by Paul Graham in his 2008 essay How to Disagree [lots more information about each of the levels listed below]. His hierarchy has seven levels, from “Name-calling” to “Refuting the central point”.

1. Name-calling
   This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common.
2. Ad Hominem
   An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling.
3. Responding to Tone
   The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer.
4. Contradiction
   In this stage, we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom.
5. Counterargument
   At this level, we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument.
6. Refutation
   The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation.
7. Refuting the Central Point
   The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point.

Paul Graham’s Disagreement Hierarchy

---

Why people disagree

a post by Andrea Onofrino for the OUP blog


by rawpixel via Pixabay 

People disagree. Human beings often express conflicting views about a variety of different issues, from food and music to science and politics. With the development of advanced communication technologies, this fact has become more visible than ever. (Think of Twitter wars.) The extent and depth of our disagreements can lead many to despair of making progress through rational debate. Before resigning ourselves to pessimism, however, we should make sure that we understand the phenomenon. Philosophical reflection might help.

Consider the following discussion:

Aurora: Everyone has a moral obligation to do what they can against climate change, even when this means making choices that can negatively affect their family or their country. Making a large donation to a charity that protects rainforest might mean less money for your children’s education, and policies that reduce emissions might make the industrial sector of your country less competitive. I understand this is tough, but preventing climate change requires tough decisions.

Bianca: I agree that climate change is real and that adopting these measures would be necessary to stop it. But surely I have no moral obligation to do something that can negatively affect my family or my country.

Aurora and Bianca seem to disagree. They do not disagree on the reality of climate change or the effectiveness of the measures described by Aurora. But they do disagree on whether we have a moral obligation to take such measures.

Could Aurora and Bianca realistically aspire to resolve their disagreement, or should they simply agree to disagree?

Continue reading

---