What We Should Be Arguing About

Human beings have a tendency to oversimplify what they believe is going on in the world around them. Unfortunately, this is quite necessary. No single person is capable of analyzing all the complex scientific, moral, cultural, social, economic, and political (or whatever else) systems in which we find ourselves entangled. We need to take mental shortcuts for any of what we see to make any sense. 

So when it comes to topics or issues that are controversial, many people have a tendency to view the issue as only having two sides (often represented by the most extreme views) ignoring that there is an entire spectrum of possible positions an individual might have on that issue. But even this is a simplification of the problem. It assumes positions on an issue can be laid out in a straight line, in a single dimension, but, really, any issue can be analyzed in any number of dimensions.

When we find ourselves in the middle of a political debate, it's important to recognize these dimensions, the shades and nuances of opposing views, so that we can understand the effects different arguments can have. For instance, suppose the topic of debate is economic regulation. One extreme view might be that economic regulation is bad because our markets should be free. The other extreme would be that regulations are good because people need to be protected.

These, of course, are overly simplistic views, because economic regulations, as a whole, can neither be good nor bad. Every economic regulation needs to be considered individually. How will it affect the economy? How will it affect individuals' economic liberty? How will it affect economic equality? How will it affect different groups of people? What might the unintended consequences be as this regulation interacts with other regulations?

People will disagree on the answers to these questions, but even if they were to agree on the answers, they will disagree on which of those answers are the most important. Not understanding this leads to fruitless arguments. One person might argue against of a regulation because it will stifle economic growth, and another person might argue for the regulation because it promotes economic equality. It doesn't even matter if neither, either, or both are right. Their arguments reveal that their disagreement is unrelated to the accuracy of their statements.

I believe people waste too much time arguing about specific issues. Arguments such as these reveal that their disagreements are on a much more fundamental level. What they are really arguing about is the priority of their values (though they might not realize it). Which is more important, economic growth or economic equality? However, framing the argument around a single topic obscures this, and makes it difficult for either side to sway the other. They both believe they are right about the effect of the regulation (and they both might be), so there is no possible resolution.

I think we'd be better off having discussions about more fundamental issues such as the priority of our values, how we form our beliefs, and how we make decisions. Because until people are in agreement on these essential matters, arguing about specifics is unlikely to be productive. However, this requires that we turn our eyes inward because we need to be able to answer these questions about ourselves before we talk about them with other people. And that can be very hard to do.

But we need to try. Or, at the very least, I need to.