The new president of the National Executive Association, Spencer Cox, promotes the idea of "healthy conflict." The governor of Utah is concerned about the growing problem of toxic conflict in society. According to the Washington Post, Cox wants people to learn that "it's better to disagree."
This is not just a political issue and we all need to consider how we can join him in his quest. This is a problem that affects our society. At this time, any dispute turns into an angry conflict. We are better than this. Our disagreements are honest, but our disagreements are changeable.
You have to start with something. I suggest you start by ignoring all ad hominem arguments. What's that? "Ad hominem" is a Latin phrase meaning "to man". I'm sure you've seen discussions like that. Everything is around us. What he is describing is an argument where we insult someone instead of actually saying what he said. We doubt the character of this person. It is classified as one of the most fundamental logic errors.
Take a look at these examples. First, liberals support the use of books in schools. Instead of criticizing the book, someone who disagreed with them said, "Only detractors can defend this book." This is an ad hominem attack.
You can see where this is going. Liberals are outraged and believe that the child abuse charge should be re-submitted. The real problem of the book is left behind when anger sets in. What started as a legal battle over school eligibility turned into an ongoing personal feud.
Conservatives, on the other hand, criticize the use of textbooks in schools; A dissident would say, "Only a fascist would criticize such a book." Ad hominem blasphemy on the other hand. Another personal attack. When the man answered, the question about the book was hidden. "I'm not a fascist."
As is.
Or think about how many people responded to a court order. Liberals often oppose gun control decisions, condemning the judges who make the decisions. "What do you expect from a proper judge?" Or: "This judge was secretly bought out by a far-right billionaire."
On the other hand, we see similar ad hominem attacks from conservatives. "This judge ruled liberal gun control because Obama appointed him." Or: "This judge was secretly bought out by a left-wing billionaire."
When an ad hominem attack occurs, everyone loses. We forget real problems worth studying. Because these attacks are personal, they provoke anger rather than understanding. They increase suspicion and division among people. The main thing is that we can learn from each other, spreading understanding on complex issues. Our disagreements today are sufficient without personal attacks.
How can we avoid ad hominem arguments? When we hear something we disagree with, we need to examine the issue instead of getting personal. If there is an argument that the book should be given in school, ask what the book is about. Including reading books. And once you know what it's about, find out why it's good or bad for young people. If the book bothers you, explain why. If you think the book is good, explain why. The same goes for court decisions. Do you know what the judge said about this? Are you sure you read the solution? And if so, why is that good or bad?
We must learn to know the why, not the who.
Joining Governor Cox's campaign around healthy diversity is not naive. Not everyone asks you to hold hands and sing cumbia. Our country is very divided and he is not suggesting that we all get along. But instead of resorting to personal attacks, we can all benefit from focusing on the debate.
The only problem is that we are all open to making mistakes sometimes. We all have to learn if we disagree. But do we have the power to make mistakes? That's the question.
Solomon D. Stevens is the author of Religion, Politics and Law (co-written with Peter Shoten) and The Challenge for Peace in the Middle East. He wrote about it for InsideSources.com.