Accepting Disagreements: The Logic of Conflicting Opinions and Their Resolution
When opinions clash, and issues arise from those differences, finding a solution becomes difficult. If such problems are left unresolved, it negatively impacts the parties involved. As the number of unresolved issues due to conflicting opinions increases, it becomes a dark element for society as a whole.
How can we guide problems that include these differences of opinion in a positive direction?
I believe that it is essential to understand the causes of such conflicts of opinion and to equip oneself with the techniques and mindset to address issues when opinions clash.
In this article, I will focus on cases where it is impossible to change each other’s opinions to understand the reasons for these conflicts. I will delve into the logic behind them.
It’s crucial to grasp the complete picture of opinion conflicts by combining logic with psychology and emotions. However, discussing all these together can complicate understanding. Therefore, in this article, we will focus solely on the logic behind these conflicting opinions.
We will also outline steps to solve the problem without changing one’s opinions. We’ll explain why I believe the ability to address issues that include differences of opinion is vital for both individuals and society.
Let’s start by presenting a fictional story to explain the logic of conflicting opinions, resolution steps, and their impact on society.
Example of Opinion Collision: Flowers, Ants, and Bacteria
On a hot summer day, Alice and Bob find a kiosk in the park, just when they were thirsty.
Bob heads straight to the kiosk, but there are wildflowers in the way. Alice tells Bob they should take a detour to avoid stepping on them. Bob argues that the detour might have ants and bacteria. Stepping on flowers is the same as stepping on ants and bacteria, he contends.
Trying to keep her anger in check, Alice responds,
“Even if there’s a chance of stepping on ants and bacteria, I don’t want to step on the flowers, and I don’t want you to either. I acknowledge that ants and bacteria are living things too. But through our discussion, I realized I value flowers more than ants and bacteria. I’ve thought about it, and I don’t think I can change this perspective.”
Alice continues,
“I understand that you see no difference between stepping on flowers and stepping on ants and bacteria. But, could you take the detour for me, not the flowers? If you do, I would be grateful for your generosity.”
Bob scratches his head, “Alright. But you’ll have to buy me a drink in return.”
Unobserved Pure Propositions
There’s a proposition regarding a concept A that questions whether it exists or not. Or, whether it’s correct or not. The proposition refers to a “question” or “inquiry.”
Concepts include things, actions, events, conditions, characteristics, laws, beliefs, etc. They can be described as any idea that comes to mind.
For instance, living organisms like flowers, ants, and bacteria, or objects like a kiosk and juice, actions like stepping on or taking a detour, and events like a stepped-on flower getting hurt. Beliefs like “one shouldn’t step on flowers,” “living things should be cherished,” or “if someone does a favor, they should be compensated in return” correspond to convictions.
If a proposition can be logically derived from known propositions, we’ll call it a derived proposition.
For derived propositions, a combination of known propositions and logic can objectively confirm whether it exists or if it’s correct. Objectivity means that when stakeholders think logically, they can come to the same conclusion.
For example, everyone knows from experience that if you lift something and let go, it falls. This is a known proposition. So, will a pen drop if you lift it and let go? A pen is also an object, so it would fall. This is a derived proposition.
On the other hand, propositions that are not derived are referred to as pure propositions.
For pure propositions, observing the real world or researching to make them into derived propositions can sometimes objectively confirm them. The fact that objects fall when released is confirmed by observing reality.
However, some propositions can’t be objectively confirmed through observation or research. For example, the belief that flowers should be valued more than ants and bacteria is subjective and can’t be objectively confirmed. Also, the idea that taking a detour could lead to stepping on ants is uncertain because it’s about the future. Typically, no detailed investigation would be conducted on such matters, so they generally remain unknown.
In any case, when a proposition has not been confirmed objectively in this manner, we’ll refer to it as an unobserved pure proposition.
Subjective Treatment of Unobserved Pure Propositions
Unobserved pure propositions cannot be objectively determined.
Therefore, each person can only decide how to handle it subjectively. There are five stances on how to handle them:
Stance 1: Believe. In other words, the stance that assumes “Concept A exists/is correct.”
Stance 2: Do not believe. Meaning, the stance that assumes “Concept A does not exist/is not correct.”
Stance 3: Believe it’s unknowable. Meaning, the stance that assumes “Nothing can be said about whether Concept A exists or not.”
Stance 4: Believe both are possible. In other words, the stance that assumes “Concept A might exist, but it might also not.”
Stance 5: Affirm all stances from 1 to 4. Meaning, the stance that assumes “It’s possible to believe in Concept A, to deny it, to consider it unknowable, and to consider both possibilities as probable.”
When given an unobserved pure proposition, each entity will adopt one of these frameworks. There is no middle ground.
Stances 3 and 4 encompass Stances 1 and 2. Stance 5 encompasses all. Therefore, one person does not take multiple stances. If one takes a comprehensive view, they are in Stance 5.
To elaborate on Stance 5, this typically aligns with a pragmatic approach. Meaning, you don’t mind adopting any of the stances from 1 to 4, but you choose what’s practically useful.
Considering the example given initially about valuing flowers over ants or bacteria: Alice explicitly states she’s in Stance 1.
Bob might be in Stance 2 or even seem like Stance 4. Perhaps, at heart, he’s Stance 5 but pretends to be Stance 2 to get a drink treat from Alice.
Communication about Unobserved Pure Propositions
Unobserved pure propositions are subjective, leading to different personal stances. When they are involved, it’s impossible to proceed with an objective discussion.
Hence, when communicating with others, it’s crucial to be aware of unobserved pure propositions. Especially when different cultural backgrounds are involved, the quality of communication might drastically differ based on this understanding.
First, both parties should acknowledge whether the proposition in question is an unobserved pure proposition. The discussion should start from this shared understanding. If disagreements arise, returning to this basic premise to realign understanding is essential.
Once both parties recognize it’s an unobserved pure proposition, they should disclose their stances, making clear whether they are in Stance 1 to 5.
If both have the same stance, discussions can progress quickly. Often, there might be no need to discuss the proposition, but for complex issues with multiple unobserved pure propositions, it’s wise to clarify one by one.
If one or both parties are in Stance 5, it might seem they agree, but it’s not necessarily so. Stance 5 is closely tied to pragmatism, choosing the most beneficial option. If both parties’ choices differ, conflicts can arise.
When stances differ, trying to change the other’s stance is mostly futile. Since unobserved pure propositions lack objectivity, unless someone changes their stance, others can’t influence them. Even if persuasion or pressure appears to change an opinion, it’s likely just a superficial change, and deep-rooted beliefs rarely shift.
Problem-solving with Conflict as a Premise
In cases where parties have different stances, they often have to maintain them. In many scenarios where people with such fundamental differences need to communicate, it’s usually because there’s an issue to resolve.
If there’s no issue, parties can avoid the topic, switch conversations, or disband. If there’s a problem, communication must continue.
The problem-solving approach must assume conflicting unobserved pure propositions.
Even with conflicts on unobserved pure propositions, there’s usually a mutually acceptable solution. Prioritizing finding a solution that satisfies both parties becomes vital.
If no solution is found, the next phase involves compromise or negotiation. One party might compromise a bit to resolve the issue, or they might negotiate to offset losses in another framework.
If neither compromise nor negotiation works, the final approach is deciding based on rules or third-party mediation.
Social Impact of Failing to Resolve Conflicts
The real problem arises when people remain unconvinced. When discussions and rule-based solutions fail, negative elements emerge within society.
Some individuals or groups continue to harbor dissatisfaction and resentment, leaving a trail of negative emotions in society. In more extreme situations, they might try to alter conclusions through threats and retaliation, or resort to outright force to assert their claims.
Therefore, resolving issues that involve conflicts isn’t just a matter for the disputing parties. In societies where problem resolution frequently fails, there’s an accumulation of negative feelings and actual incidents.
Time does have the effect of letting negative emotions and events fade. However, if the speed at which negativity arises is faster than the rate of forgetting, the total negativity will continue to increase.
From this perspective, a society where many people possess the skills to resolve conflicts is a preferable society, as negativity would be less likely to accumulate.
Importance of Skills and Mindset in Resolving Conflicts
Hence, learning about conflict issues and training in conflict resolution skills and know-how is essential.
Additionally, it’s crucial to develop high-consensus rules and third-party mediation mechanisms.
More importantly, the mindset to prevent any unresolved negativity from lingering is necessary. Thus, cultivating a culture and trend of taking responsibility and committing to the issue at hand is vital.
Such skills and attitudes are not just relevant at the societal level. They also apply to modern society’s specific human relations issues, such as sustaining a couple’s harmony or maintaining workplace motivation.
In essence, acquiring the skills and mindset to solve conflicts is a win-win for both society and individuals.
In Conclusion: Drink and Friendship
When Bob asked Alice to treat him to a drink, she was about to say “Fine,” but stopped herself. After some thought, she said to Bob:
“I appreciate you going out of your way for me, and I’m grateful. But if I buy you the drink, I might feel a sense of unease. I might wonder if you told me about the ants and bacteria just to get something in return. I can’t directly know your true intentions, and once I start thinking this way, it won’t completely vanish no matter what you say.”
Seeing Bob’s surprised expression, Alice continued.
“So, I offer you two choices. The first is accepting the drink from me, which might make me uneasy. The second is not accepting the drink and continuing your detour, keeping our friendship unchanged. What will it be?”
Bob shrugged. “It’s obvious. I’ll buy my own drink.”
Alice smiled. “Thank you. In that case, let me treat you to the drink as a sign of appreciation.”
The end.
