6
votes
Rational thinkers out there
Let me be straight and clear because it might be hard to explain and come up with words to explain it.
How do you guys take a side/stand when you have seen the both side of the argument/situation (anything similar to it), and both are correct in their own way. If you take one's side, you know you're not being fair to other one because you can rationalise it and know that other side is also correct. But if you're forced to take one. How do you come to the conclusion.
I always tend to avoid this type of scenario but it eventually happens again. And if you avoid it, people will be left to wonder it they were right or wrong (but you know both sides are right) in the decision/situation/you get the point.
P.S sorry for the bad english
It's hard to talk about this in such vague terms, but generally I find the way to handle situations where you can see both sides is that you have to look into the basis for each side's reasoning and really think about what you value more. It's important to care about rationality, but when it comes down to it many decisions do come down to what you believe is more important.
Both sides can be logically consistent and have good points from their perspectives, but if you leave it at that you'll end up with a lot of things where you just can't take action or are uselessly neutral. I think most of the time when you end up in those scenarios where it seems like everyone is right in their own way, it's because you haven't put in the work to really think about where their arguments come from, who they are, and what assumptions they're built on.
Is one side more in need of your support? Following that, is there an imbalance in power? Is one side's argument based in something you find distasteful? Hell, even just who you trust more may have to be the deciding factor. Sometimes if you need to take action, shaky ground for taking a side is better than fence sitting and letting a problem between others go without intervention. If you're uncomfortable with that, in many scenarios you can even be clear that that's what you're doing...talk to the party that you choose to side against, and tell them that while you understand their point and it makes sense, the party that you sided with takes priority because "x".
Basically just be willing to recognize that a scenario may not be able to be reasoned out without external factors coming in. That pure reasoning may be a good place to start, but very often it'll bring you to a standstill.
I disagree that we must "pick a side". Life is not black and white and many times both sides have merit. The correct "side" to choose here is a bridge with the goal being to bring both sides closer together or to reduce conflict.
This is a little silly given that the question asks about a scenario where you're forced to take a side, and that's true with a lot of real life questions that require you to take action.
Saying "both sides are right" sounds great and it's sometimes a valid option when your opinion doesn't really matter, but when something needs to be done, fence sitting gets you nowhere.
Life isn't black and white, but that isn't an excuse for never taking a side on anything. Compromise is great, but not always possible. People, especially if they end up in positions of authority or get dragged into others' conflicts, need to be equipped to make decisions like that because sometimes there are genuine conflicts where each side wants something different, they're both logically right, and there's not really a middle ground.
It's also worth mentioning that many tools for compromise require taking a side. The classic thing where you give one side this issue but make it up somewhere else still requires some choice if it's to be done well.
Where did you read that? I don't see that in OPs post or your initial reply.
I also disagree that there is ever a situation where you are "forced" to take a side. You always have a choice.
I never argued that you should fence sit. In fact, I argued that you should choose to be the bridge, which is taking action and the opposite of fence sitting.
The very definition of compromise is a settlement where both sides make concessions so no, it does not require taking a side.
It's in the OP. I like your ideals, but they're just that: ideals. Sometimes the only options are either doing nothing or taking a side. Some things ARE one side or the other and there's no middle ground.
I don't know why you're arguing against the very idea of making decisions when tough dilemmas come up. Yes, you should try to compromise or maybe stay neutral if you have the opportunity to, but the starting point of this conversation is with an issue where you can't just find a place in the middle or harmlessly stay out of it.
This is sometimes true, but you're not going to be very good at finding compromises if you limit yourself to this. Most things don't have a solution perfectly in the middle, which is why we employ things like handing it off. "This party gets what they want here, but next time we've gotta give something to the other." This is one of the most common compromises but it still requires a choice on who gets this one.
Ah okay thanks, I think I misread that as "but what if you're forced". Either way I missed it after reading it twice so thanks.
Where did you get that idea?
I think you're conflating the idea of taking action/making decisions and taking a side.
Why?
No problem with that bit, it's tucked in oddly and it looks like some others may have skipped over or misread it anyway.
All of your other points are forgetting that we are talking about a scenario where there's no middle ground. Like, if there isn't a middle ground, then your options are doing nothing or taking a side. You can try and create a dialogue between the opposing parties all you want, but if there's a true conflict where their interests directly clash, sometimes the only way out is to pick something.
Excuse me if this sounds patronizing, but let's look at a low-stakes and clear-cut example:
You live in a town with 2 restaurants, and two friends come to you to split up their argument about which to go to. Their arguments are both equally valid: their own taste in food. Of course, first you look for a middle ground and suggest driving a little further to go to the place in the next town over that they both like, even if neither loves it. This is close to the ideal compromise, and you should absolutely look for it first.
But I imagine OP is talking about a scenario more equivalent to that place being closed that day, and the grocery store too, so they can't make anything at home either. Any other solutions just happen to be impractical that day. In that case, your options are doing nothing or taking a side. This is when you think about your one friend having a rough time in their life lately, so you decide to throw it their way.
Or, if you're really dedicated to compromise, you say one friend gets their way this time, but next week the other does. Who gets what and when still needs to be decided, but this is the closest you can get to a true compromise.
Of course, this example doesn't have any pressure on you, and that's where it falls apart. You could reasonably be like "don't drag me into this shit" and walk away. But you can easily imagine a situation where you're in a management position or something where you need to break it up like that, but I wanted to avoid bringing in baggage and the extra question of if the original reasoning was really equivalent.
--
Just fyi, this is probably where I back out since things are starting to repeat. Feel free to take the final word! I would turn off notifications for this if we had that option...
Maybe we're just dancing around the semantics of what "picking a side" means.
Choosing one option over the other this time isn't inherently "picking a side" to me, especially if the explicit (or even implicit) assumption is that you will "pick" the other side next time. I consider this being neutral or making a compromise.
You don't pick a side until you subscribe to it's ideals or core purpose, even if you don't agree with all of that side's "policies", if the side exists in a complex enough state to have them.
Isn't "taking sides" causing harm? Why isn't saying "it's complicated, so here's what I think" acceptable?
Because often times you're not forced to pick one, or there isn't a right or wrong solution, and there is no general strategy for deciding on what you prefer. You need to add more context; are we talking about an argument between people? A career change or long term investment? A debate about philosophical or political ideas?
A couple aphorisms:
Now there's goodness to be had in skepticism, but at the end of the day, the failure to choose is itself a choice. There is a concept in economics that applies here called opportunity cost. What economists mean by this concept, in broad terms, is that the amount of time it takes to choose what to do with a resource is a use of a finite resource itself (time). What else could I have done in the five minutes or so it took to type this response? What other thoughts might I have had? I might have drank some water, or read a little more of a book I've had sitting around lately. Ain't nobody who has an infinite amount of time, so it'd be best to get a move on eventually.
At the extreme end of this, there is in behavior science research a concept that is being dubbed the "paradox of choice." And what those researchers mean by this term is that if you give people a ton of choices, there will reach a certain point where the more choices you give them, the less likely they are to decide on anything. It is better if you're trying to sell something to limit the options (but to still have some options). The research isn't exactly clear on when this point comes so much as that it comes eventually.
So between those two concepts, opportunity cost and the paradox of choice, I think it's important to take sides even when you recognize each side has merits and flaws. As long as you're alive, you can change your view with new information, but why bother getting bogged down in an existential worry about being absolutely correct? It's probable that we're at least a little wrong anyway. And if you try to gather as many potential options as possible, it's likely you'll bog yourself down even more.
God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.
Amen.
I am an atheist and still use the Serenity prayer as my primary mantra. It's a solid rule to follow even if you take "God" to mean whatever force, be it external (a Deity, Karma, Fate, etc) or internal (Inspiration, Rationality, etc), that guides you.
Rational thought will only get you so far. Many opposing positions can be arrived at with cogent logic. That's where ethics and feelings come in. We aren't Vulcans or androids, feelings have value.
I disagree. Feelings are irrelevant and should be ignored.
Okay there, Mister Vulcan.
Feelings are 100% relevant, as are personal and societal morals.
Now there's a hot take. Would you mind elaborating why you feel that way?
I don't know how I'd answer this. Seems like it should be self-evident.
If you don't know how to answer a question that simple, perhaps that's a sign that you either a) don't actually understand your own position enough to explain it logically, or b) that you aren't interested in contributing any discussion of value and would rather post dumb shit to get a reaction out of people.
Or hey, it could be both.
Now you're just trolling. (I thought trolling wasn't supposed to happen here? :/)
Nope.. look, if you want to have a constructive discussion on why feelings are irrelevant and should be ignored, I'm game. Because I think you're very wrong and am curious about the thought process that has led you to that conclusion. But that involves you explaining your position beyond two sentences and not falling back on 'well it should be self-evident' because you don't feel like constructing an actual response.
If it helps, I believe that feelings are relevant in most things and should not be ignored. Feelings are a uniquely human response to stimuli, and ignoring them is ignoring a huge part of what makes people... well, people. Do you agree? If not, why?
Why do you think that?
Feelings and instinct set the goals. Logic determines how best to achieve those goals.
If I can't tell which side is correct, I don't take a side... (and I argue for both sides, depending on the context)
I think it's always important to be able to compassionately view all sides of any argument. And in general, you can support parts of sides without issue. When forced to choose between to directly conflicting sides, I tend to weigh harm. Is one position harmful, where the other is not? Are both positions harmful is varying degrees? In which case, harm reduction is how I choose. Of course, you'll still run into issues where both sides are equally harm, but maybe towards different people. In those cases, one side will feel more right. But that still doesn't mean having to completely take that side. There can still be steps for harm reduction.
Generally speaking, the situation you're describing where you are able to see a situation from both sides is ideal, in my opinion. Because in most cases, there really is truth on all sides. That doesn't mean the 'truth' on each side is the whole truth.
Because you're in a position where you see truth on both sides, you are less likely to be affected by bias and therefore in the best position to examine the facts of the situation while doing your best to suspend all emotions and ego - or at least to recognize the emotional response and not let it affect your judgment of the facts.
In all likelihood neither side is going to have the ideal argument, but one may be closer to the truth than the other. A synthesis is probably ideal, and maybe some negotiation might be good if you can mediate that, but if it's a situation where you truly must pick one or the other then you should pick whichever has the most logical arguments.
I've seen people in the comments here say that logic is for vulcans and you need to be all emotion, and I find that to be childish. Emotions are important, ethics are important, and anyone who has cared for a child knows that you don't just do whatever the emotional argument is because sometimes it's literally life-threatening. If the decision you're evaluating has any power to affect the wellbeing of individuals in a serious way, then emotions need to be recognized and then set aside to determine the path which causes the least harm and does the most good in the long run.
Figure out what the issue is. Often disagreements are based on disputes over facts or disputes over goals. The latter is easy to address, as long as you can identify the disagreement, even if the conclusion is to agree to disagree.
Disputes over facts, though, are generally a sign that a party is not being honest. There is no reasoning with a person who sees reason as a hindrance to winning. Try to correct them, in case they are genuine but mislead. But don't exhaust yourself shouting at a wall.
Sometimes it comes down to emotion. Even if I can understand the other side's point of view, it just doesn't feel right.
Other times, it might come down to a diluted form of utility: which approach would produce the most good for the most people.
It's typically the case that one side's correctness has more weight than the other's.
Good Samaritan laws are an excellent real-world example of this. The scenario is that one person is incapacitated (drowning, car accident, whatever) and another person sees this and attempts to help (CPR, first aid, etc.). In the process, however, the person helping inadvertently causes some form of injury, e.g. cracking ribs while performing CPR.
Now, in the above scenario the person being helped is understandably upset that the other person caused injury. If they weren't able to help without harming you, then why couldn't they get someone else to help? They caused your medical bills to spike and everything, and now you have a crushing amount of medical debt! Surely they should help pay for the damages, right?
That being said, the person who helped is understandably upset that they're being threatened with a lawsuit for saving their life. Why does it matter if they're slightly injured? At least they're alive, and it's not like harming them was the intent, so why should you have to pay their medical bills when you've already gone above and beyond to prevent them from being dead and thus incapable of paying anything?
Both sides here have very valid reasons for being upset. One person was just trying to do something objectively good and save another person's life, and the other doesn't want some inexperienced person causing them to deal with higher medical bills than what would otherwise be necessary.
But one person is more correct than the other because the weight of their position is greater than that of the other: the helper is protected by Good Samaritan laws because if we allow helpers to get sued, then people will be far more likely to hesitate if someone is in need of help because they won't want to risk being sued as well. The potential harm of eliminating beneficial good samaritan behavior deserves more consideration than the right to sue for damages because that harm affects everyone and could lead to people losing their lives when they otherwise might have been saved.
Not all of these issues are so cut-and-dry like this, of course, but most are. For those that aren't, sometimes you have to just make a subjective judgment based on some values that you or society hold and hope for the best. It's not ideal, but reality rarely works in ideals.