by Shelby Clark
At The Good Project when thinking about how to resolve a difficult dilemma we often apply a framework referred to as the “5Ds.” The 5Ds include:
Define: Recognize the dilemma in your life;
Discuss and Debate: An outward looking step, where you consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons, and probable consequences of various courses of action;
Deliberate: An inward looking step, where you personally reflect on the various options available, and whether or not to take action;
Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision;
Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.
To date, my colleagues and I have written several blogs that incorporate the 5Ds framework (here, here, and here). Here, I hope to dive deeper into how an individual might engage in element #2 of the 5Ds framework: discussing and debating.
The scholarly literature on discussion and debate is vast and I do not intend to cover that here; instead here are a few helpful ideas or frameworks that can guide individuals as they engage in discussing and debating dilemmas.
1. Preacher, prosecutor, politician, or scientist? In his recent book, Think Again, organizational psychologist Adam Grant points out that there are a variety of ways that we can approach discussions and arguments. If we believe our beliefs are at risk, we act like a preacher and try to protect our beliefs; if we think other people’s reasoning or logic is at fault, we attack it like a prosecutor would in court; if we want to win over others, we try to persuade them like a politician would.
While each of these modes of discussion certainly has its place, Grant argues that we should really try to act more like scientists in our discussions with one another—scientists, he notes, are “expected to doubt what [they] know, be curious about what [they] don’t know, and update [their] views based on new data… we move into scientist mode when we’re searching for the truth.”
When discussing a dilemma, which of these roles are you embodying? What would it look like for you to approach your dilemma like a scientist? Grant notes that even saying “Can we debate?” at the beginning of a discussion indicates that you are more interested in approaching a discussion as a scientist—someone interested in truth—than as a preacher, prosecutor, or politician.
2. Try to have a Better Argument: The Better Arguments Project (here) is a collaboration between the Aspen Institute, Facing History and Ourselves, and The Allstate Corporation that promotes the belief that individuals need to focus not on ceasing to argue, but on having better arguments. For them, better arguments include a focus on historical context, emotions, and recognizing power inherent in arguments, but such arguments also take five broad principles into account: 1) take winning off the table; 2) prioritize relationships and listen passionately; 3) pay attention to context; 4) embrace vulnerability; and 5) make room to transform. The Good Project has collaborated with the Better Arguments Project to create workbooks (here) focused on the idea that having better arguments can lead to good work.
What would your dilemma discussion look like if you focused on having a better argument around your dilemma?
3. Utilitarian, deontologist, or virtue ethicist? Historically, many have looked to normative ethical frameworks (here)—those that define the standards of ethical behavior—to help guide them in their thinking about what is “right.” For example, some think about what would be right for the most amount of people (here), as a utilitarian would. Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham in the late 1700s, is primarily concerned with the consequences of an action and whether or not a particular act maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain (here) instead of whether the act itself is moral.
Deontologists (here) often believe, instead, that certain duties should be carried out and that individuals have certain inherent rights regardless of outcomes. Founded by Immanuel Kant in the 1700s, Kant argued that it was not consequences that mattered to determine whether something was moral, but rather whether the intentions or motivations of a person were good. Kant argued that certain duties were inherent to everyone (here), and, perhaps most famously, defined the “categorical imperative” as a duty that everyone must perform regardless of the end result; that is, the act itself is also the consequence and therefore morally bad acts cannot be treated as a means to a good end.
Virtue ethicists (here) believe that if you respond to a dilemma by being a good person—for example, with courage and honesty—then such habits of character will lead to a flourishing life. Founded in the teachings of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics from ancient Greece, virtue ethicists argue that habits of good character are cultivated throughout life and help individuals to respond automatically (here) with “goodness” to everyday events. Thus, it is through developing moral and intellectual character strengths, such as intellectual honesty, prudence, or responsibility, that the virtue ethicist believes an individual is able to respond with goodness to the dilemmas of life.
When discussing the pros and cons of a dilemma at hand, how do you think about what is the right course of action? Consider using our activity (here) to help you explore which of these ethical frameworks you are arguing for or against as you discuss or debate your dilemma. Perhaps you are arguing for a framework not named here, such as an ethic of care (a relationship focused ethical framework), or for a religious-based framework.
4. Learn how to “disagree well”: Paul Graham, an internet pioneer, in his 2008 essay “How to Disagree” (here) laid out in pyramidal form a hierarchy of disagreements (here).
● At the bottom of the pyramid is name calling.
● Individuals then progress into ad hominem arguments, wherein individuals attack a person rather than their argument.
● Next is “responding to tone”—the person responds to the content of an argument, but simply the tone in which it is said (e.g. a “flippant” argument).
● Next is contradiction, where one just states an opposing argument without evidence.
● This is followed by counterargument—a contradiction combined with evidence and reasoning.
● Following counterargument is refutation—quoting someone’s argument and explaining the mistake in this quoted argument.
● Finally, “refuting the central point”—finding someone’s central thread, refuting it, and then giving evidence to back up one’s argument.
As you discuss a dilemma, be aware of how you are disagreeing. What level of the hierarchy of disagreement are you at?
5. Build common ground. Scholars from a number of disciplinary backgrounds indicate that the best way to change other’s minds is to first build common ground with one another rather than throwing facts and logic around. Building friendships, showing care and civility towards one another (here), and building positive emotion is the first step towards opening the door to further discussion, sparking curiosity, and potentially changing one another’s minds. Consider exploring the research of organizations like More in Common (here) to help share ways that groups can reach across divides.
When you discuss a dilemma, are you looking for ways to reach out to others? Reflect on how you are attending to positive emotions and civil discussion as you think and converse about dilemmas.
As mentioned above, there are certainly many more discussion and debate frameworks, and some may be more appropriate for your population of students or for certain discussions over others. For myself, I am naturally drawn to Grant’s framework of preachers, prosecutors, politicians, and scientists. I often feel that I can fall into all three of these “P” roles; I am known to adamantly defend my beliefs, to attempt to persuade others of the faults in their logic, and I am sometimes competitive to a fault. Yet, my work has also been focused on developing adolescents’ intellectual virtues, like curiosity, and the essence of intellectual virtues is about trying to find epistemic truth. That is, how can curiosity, or open-mindedness, or intellectual humility help us better understand “truth”? As such, through my work I am constantly reminded of my role as a scientist—I want to dig deeper, and know more, even if it goes against my own beliefs.
We’d love to hear from you if you’ve found any routines or frameworks useful in your work discussing or debating our dilemmas. Contact us here.
