Step 1) Clearly define the policy of contention.
Many disputes arise due to miscommunication. The effort to isolate a simple, practical policy proposal may reveal that, you actually agree. Otherwise, clearly stating the contentious policy allows the remaining conversation to stay on topic and avoid shifting goal posts. Example: Imposing a 2% wealth tax on assets over $100,000,000. Step 2) Identify the costs and benefits of the contentious policy according to the each of the proponent and opponent. All policies are aimed towards one or more ends. Futhermore, all policies have unintended but foreseeable costs and benefits. The proponent and opponent of the contentious policy should each prepare their own list clearly identifying the significant costs and benefits that would result from implementation of the policy. Example: Benefits - Slowing the rate of increasing inequality which is corrupting our political system, generating revenue to fund additional education and create jobs in the education sector. Costs - Spurring capital flight. Step 3) Identify all significant points of disagreement Compare and contrast the two lists and the degree to which each cost and benefit is perceived by each party to weigh in on their overall assessment of the policy. If, after examining the lists, you now agree on the issue of whether the sum of the consequences of the policy would be positive or negative, the dispute is over. Otherwise, identify which aspects of the list you disagree on. There are two ways you can disagree: 1) you disagree on what certain consequences will be, or 2) you disagree on whether certain consequences are positive, negative or even important. Enumerate each significant difference of opinion in the list, and determine whether it is a disagreement of type 1 or 2. Step 4) Using a thought experiment, confirm that you have discovered all the essential sources of the disagreement . The proponent and opponent should each perform the following thought experiment: Suppose each of the enumerated differences of opinion (from step 3) turned out to align with the other person's view. Then ask yourself, if that were true, would your opinion on the policy proposal change? If the enumerated differences of opinion contain the source of the disagreement, both the proponent and opponent of the policy should admit that their opinion on the policy proposal would change. If one or the other party does not think their opinion would change, then return to step 2. Step 5) Using a thought experiment, eliminate nonessential sources of the disageement. It's possible that the enumerated differences of opinion from step 3 include disagreements which aren't relevant to the broader issue about the policy. In order to stay focussed, it is important to eliminate these. We can do that by refining the thought experiment from step 4. Rather than considering how the parties' opinions would change if all of the enumerated differences of opinion from step 3 were to align with the other person's view, now consider how the parties' opinions would change with each of the enumerated differences of opinion individually, one at a time. If one of the party's opinions on the broader policy issue would change on a change to just one of the enumerated differences of opinion, then all others can be discarded. Similarly, different combinations can be considered. If one of the party's opinions would change considering a combination of fewer factors, then that also allows for other factors to be eliminated. After this step, we have isolated the core reason for the disagreement over policy. Step 6) Repeat steps 1-5 to now isolate the reasons for the differing opinion on the reasons isolated through stage 1. Set aside the first disagreement (stage 1), and now start again to work on stage 2. Recall that there are two kinds of factors you may have isolated in stage 1: 1) you disagree on what certain consequences will be, or 2) you disagree on whether certain consequences are positive, negative or even important. If one of the factors discovered from stage 1 is of type 1, you will need to consider evidence and other reasons for believing what consequences will follow from the policy. If the factor is type 2. You will have to consider your reasons for believing something to be important.
0 Comments
|
Something is wrong with the world. Let's fix it. Archives
December 2020
Categories |