Nowhere357

I have formed an opinion concerning controversies in public opinon, in general.

The more the clearly the battle line is drawn,
and the more each side is well represented in numbers,

then the more I can see each side as being correct.

For example consider abortion.

Killing an unborn child, or aborting a fetus, can be seen as wrong.
Forcing a woman to give up her rights to make decisions about her own body, can also be seen as wrong.

This is a true contoversy, and I can see that both sides are right.

The focus here is not about any given controversy, but about reaching a point of view that includes both sides. Are there many others who share this philosophy? Are there other general POV's that I'm missing?

As an aside, I resolve the situation in my own mind, with the concept of an immediate solution, and an ideal solution.

With abortion, for example, the ideal solution is that unwanted pregnancies should never occur, so we should work toward that goal.

The immediate solution is to respect a woman's right to choose. (Although a line must be drawn, somewhere after the first trimester, and before the third, IMO.)

Again, the focus here is not on abortion, or any other particular controversy, but on the general philosophy involved with "taking sides".

John Page

Yes, in the example quoted through moral relativism, but I would confine a "true controversy" as being a matter of opinion or preference rather than a factual, decidable matter such as "When I throw a stone into a pond, the ripples spread outwards".

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

I disagree. Whether blue, or green, is the prettier color, causes few fist-fights.
Whether a rock weighs one pound, or two pounds, also causes few fights.

So neither preference opinions, nor factoids, really are very controversial.

Gun rights would be an example of a true controversy.

Now I have to go read about "moral relativism". Thanks a lot, John.

John Page

Nowhere:

Thanks for the examples, perhaps I can make my position clearer by observing that the prettiness of colors requires reference to the opinion (emanating from the minds) of others, whereas the weight of the rock can be settled independent of such opinions. (Granted, there would need to be agreement on what a "pound" was and a satisfactory weighing method).

Does it make sense to you, differentiating between objective and subjective opinions in this way?

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Yes. So you are saying that "true" controversy is of the subjective kind.

But that's too simplistic. "True" controversy comes down to opinion, yes. But each side will have plenty of true facts to offer in support.

I'm saying that the more a controversy is seen to be "true", the more we should try to hold off forming an opinion, until we can see the validity of both (or all) sides.

This does not mean we should not value our own judgement over public opinion, of course.

Thanks, John. This thread was getting lonely. Apparently, achieving harmony is of low priority. I guess conflict is just more fun!

John Page

So we need an agreed/objective process for truth telling, hence the development of scientific methodology and logic to externalize such a process and, in turn, controversy and conflict.......

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

But this doesn't address the point. Both sides have access to these methods. Even if you are saying that the conflict and controversy are inevitable.

When you form an opinion on a controversy, does that formation include a conscious decision to consider all POV's? Not just a glance, but an attempt to imagine each POV in turn, as if you actually held that view.

I think many people form instant opinions, then to some extent manipulate your above listed methods, and massage them into an already held view. This reduces empathy, and increases conflict.

Inconnu

Controversy is when both sides are supported by the established 'truth telling' methods as being 'true', and only opinion is used to differentiate or choose which one to support, already both arguments are considered absolutely true, effectively ignoring the other sides perspective (truth) causing frustration and creating conflict. Apparent ignorance of a 'truth'.

Yes. How does religion controversy fit into the 'truth telling'?

John Page

Not necessarily and I don't know exactly how people form their opinions.

Refering back to my prior examples, prettiness seems to be very subjective whereas the weight of a rock can be settled independently of those opinions.

Regarding the standards used (units of weight/mass etc.) for weighing a rock, clearly these need to be intersubjectively agreed in order for a common understanding (context) of the weight of the rock to be reached.

Does this address the point?

Cheers, John

Marlowe

Seems to me that Nowhere is getting at the idea that true controversies are much more complex than a preference for color or even beauty, and perhaps too complex for scientific methodology and logic. Plus these two systems do not take into account human factors such as emotion and belief.

For instance - gun control. It is entirely logical that the less guns you have, the less people are going to be killed by guns. It is also logical that the less guns you have, the more power people who still have guns are going to have over people who don't have them. These two 'logical' positions lead to opposite conclusions about how many guns should be available. So logic is inadequate to deal with the controversy. A human approach has to be taken where each side needs to see the logic of the other side and attempt understanding the underlying assumptions driving the logic. These underlying assumptions are going to tend to be emotional or belief-oriented.