|
|
Differences of opinion are natural. Moreover, in the light of Hegelian dialectics they are beneficial in the search for agreement and resolution of conflict. If one starts with the idea that either side of an argument is rarely ever entirely correct, the resolution is greater in value than the sum of the arguments. Inflexibility and stubborn insistence on the validity of one’s own views are often counterproductive and even foolish. This is not to say that there are not great controversies that have deep rooted beliefs at their foundation on both sides. Those beliefs may compel the holder to fight to the death in defense of them. Two examples of such divisive issues are the bitter disagreements over the issues of abortion and capital punishment. Abortion is held to be the inalienable right of the mother by the proponents of the “pro-choice” side, who say that it is her right to decide on matters concerning her body. The “pro-life” faction on the other hand, holds that abortion is the taking of the life of a human being. Both have compelling and honestly felt arguments. In the case of the death penalty the arguments are perhaps more complex, if only because they cross the line of religious belief. There are religious as well as non-religious followers on both sides of the capital punishment issue with both sides bringing compelling arguments to the table. If a criminal commits a capital crime, gets convicted and sentenced to life in prison, then gets paroled and kills again, a very strong case can be made that, had he been executed, society would have been acting in self defense and an innocent life would have been saved. On the other hand, opponents could argue that the blame should be placed with the faulty justice system that granted parole to a murderer. These opponents point to the many false convictions that have placed innocent people on death row. This time supporters will blame the imperfect system. The point is that, while it may be easy to come out on either side of the line for those prone to make snap decisions based on visceral or emotional reaction, the more thoughtful will find those decisions much more difficult. And they will be much less likely to condemn the other side for their opinion.
To make things even tougher for the thoughtful amongst us, such reluctance to clearly come out for or against an issue is often treated less than kindly by a society that places great value on “taking a stand.” It is considered weak and derided as wishy-washy. Steadfastness of views is considered a virtue and desirable, particularly in those seeking leadership positions in life. Whether these views are of proven value often seems of secondary importance. Similarly, changing one’s mind is viewed with great prejudice. The proverbial right to change one’s mind is chauvinistically reserved for the female sex. In actuality, of course, an occasional change of mind or a reluctance to take a stand is often nothing but an expression of conscience and concern about acting correctly when faced with decisions of great importance.
|
|
