An Impasse Observed.

O'Donovan writes:

A debate occurs when people take up the arguments that others have raised against them, and try to give serious answers. To do that they must think their opponents mistaken, certainly, but not wholly foolish or malicious. They must suppose that some misconception, or some partial truth not fully integrated into other truths, has limited their vision. they must accept the burden of showing how the partial truth fits with other truths, or identifying and resolving the misconception. This cannot happen while there is still a struggle for rhetorical dominance; that is to say, while each side hope to win a monopoly for the categories in which they themselves frame the question.

In other words: there currently is little or no debate. Rhetoric, yes. A power struggle, yes. People attacking one another? Sure. But, the mutual respect and give-and-take necessary for successful debate? Not generally.

In my experience in annual Conference sessions of the West Michigan Conference of the UMC, this issue simply divides the house along predictable "liberal" / "conservative" lines. In fact, if you want to know whether a person is a "liberal" or a "conservative" -- just see how they voted on the latest proposal related to the "homosexuality" issue. Since I'm generally (pretty correctly) perceived as conservative, I know there are people who don't talk to me because they think they know my position on homosexuality issues. On the other hand, when people see me socializing with a known "liberal" (or even a known homosexual), they often come to unwarranted (and mistaken) conclusions about my position on "homosexuality." Currently this issue is serving as the ideological membership badge into the "liberal" or "conservative" factions.

It is a boundary issue. It determines the boundaries of the opposing parties. It determines membership (so to speak) in the group.

And, after a while one learns to avoid using the word "homosexual." The word simply does not have the same meaning to the disputants. So, if we're going to talk about same-sex attraction that's one thing, and if we're going to talk about same-gender sex that's another. 

Because this debate is a power struggle, the disputants seek to gain control of the meaning of the terms used in the debate. This does not clarify, it obfuscates.

If I frame my opponent's position in my own categories, I can easily make my opponent look ridiculous or, ignorant or, dangerous.

But, the tone of the debate would surely change if we assumed our "opponents mistaken, certainly, but not wholly foolish or malicious."

Next Installment: What Counts as Moral Knowledge?