An Amiably Disagreeable Spirit

Disagreement does not necessarily have to be overcome. It may remain an important and constitutive feature of our relations to others, and also be seen as something that is merely to be expected in the light of the best explanations we have of how such disagreement arises. –Bernard Williams, “Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy”

Social media makes it easier than ever to surround one’s self with like-minded “friends.” Impersonal electronic-interfaces allow one to avoid discomfort, regret, or disdain that sometimes arises in face-to-face interactions and which counter an impulse to publicly renounce another person. One reason for this homogenous impulse is that some people view disagreement as a bad thing, or just uncomfortable. Why make yourself uncomfortable if you can avoid it, right? Some people also view disagreement as unnecessary—There is a right answer, mine, and a wrong answer, yours.

        

Disagreement, though, is inevitable in any diverse society. When people from different socio-economic backgrounds, with different ethnic, racial, or cultural identifications, or different world-views and beliefs interact, they will inevitably disagree when it comes to certain courses of action, whether that disagreement is on moral, religious, or pragmatic grounds. Sometimes these disagreements may cause discomfort, but these disagreements are beneficial to every participant. Disagreement is the springboard for inquiry and exploration, both of which promote ingenuity and innovation.

Disagreement is most important when opposing sides feel equally strong about their positions and an equal desire to vindicate them. The value of disagreement is most evident when disagreements matter most. Disagreements matter most when public policy is at issue, because public policies generally require concerted or common courses of action—everyone needs to chip in, so to speak. And it is this fact—that everyone must chip in to make the concerted course of action work—that makes disagreements valuable. Disagreement over public policy provides an opportunity for every person to see the other as both an autonomous being, equally endowed with the capacity to reason, and necessary to achieve common endeavors. So long as every person’s cooperation is necessary to achieve common ends, no one should every be treated as expendable in the discussion, though, at some point, some decision must be made and some positions may lose out altogether.

A lot may be at stake sometimes when it comes to public policy. Limitations to freedom may be at stake, for example, and very often public policies limit one aspect of freedom or another. But, as Karl Popper astutely noted, “the important and difficult question of the limitations of freedom cannot be solved by a cut and dried formula. And the fact that there will always be borderline cases must be welcomed, for without the stimulus of political problems and political struggles of this kind, the citizens’ readiness to fight for their freedom would soon disappear, and with it, their freedom.” 

           Let disagreement be the beginning, never the end, of a conversation. Enrich your life with the collective wisdom of an assorted many, rather than an unvaried few. Agree to disagree when, due to an intractable impasse, you must; disagree to agree when it is necessary to keep the engines of thought running; that is, maintain an amiably disagreeable spirit.