Philosophical Rules of Engagement

Ok, this isn't intented as a comprehensive nor finished work just a few tips on how I think a philosohpy debate should conducted.

Point 1: Philosophy is the study of wisdom and therefore it should only concern itself with ideas, not people or authorities. Ideally, it shouldn't recognised people and authorities as having any impact on the validity of an argument. Therefore, each idea/argument should be judged on its own merits regardless of the profession, background, state of mind, social status or condition of the different parties in the debate.

This means arguments like, "I think you're wrong because you're a bigot/racist/poor/rich/annoying/skinny/fat/tall/short/busy/lazy/etc bastard," are meaningless because they attack the person presenting the idea and not the idea itself.

For example:

Person A: I think the world would be a better place if white people were subjugated to black people.
Persion B: You're a racist.

Problem: Yes, person B is corrected in that Person A is a racist, but they have done nothing whatsoever to counter person A's claim that the world would be a better place. So, instead of simply attacking the person making the argument CONTRIBUTE to the conversation by attacking the idea like this:

Person C: I disagree Person A, treating two groups differently tends to lead to sadism and gross transgressions of justice (such as what was observed in the Standford Prison Experiment). These actions will lead to distrust and ill will between black and white people and distrust leads to cracks appearing in the social structure that supports society. When social institutions fail insecurites about the future and each individual's personal safety rise leading to a dangerous potentially destructive scenario of overt warfare between the two groups. It is hard to see how the benefits of your proposition can outweight the problems is likely to cause.

Point 2: Ideas don't have Feelings, only the People who indentify with them do.

A lot of people think that if someone expresses an opinion in opposition to their own that they're somehow attacking them. This situation is actually quite absurd when looked at objectively but human beings have a complicated relationship with some ideas because they 'identify' with them. Let's go through some examples:

Scenario 1:
Person A: I believe it is cold outside.
Person B: No, I believe it is in fact warm outside.

Scenario 2:
Person A: I believe that gods exists.
Person B: No, I believe in fact that there is only one god that exists.

There is no difference between the logic behind these two statements however, the reader would probably agree that someone is far more likely to get upset with Person B in the second scenario. Why? Because human beings have developed a curious mechanism for extending the sphere of 'self' to include other people, things and ideas. We identify with our friends and family as being people essential to our sense of self and therefore are concerned about their well being and safety. We extend our sense of self to include certain objects and locations such as "my things" and "my house". We extend our sense of self to include certain ideas such as, "I am an Australian", "I am a Christian" or "I am a democrat" etc...

I hope you can see quite clearly that defining other people, things and ideas as being part of 'yourself' is absolutely irrational and absurd. I hope you can also appreciate just how essential that ability of human beings has been (and continues to be) to our survival as a species. I hope you can also see why people kill over lovers, friends, family, a patch of dirt or an idea like "liberty". Now, here's this for a logical extension of this idea:

"The more intensely people associate other people, things and ideas with their sense of self the more violent, aggressive, demanding and inflexible they become at defending or seizing those people, things and ideas for themselves,"

Thus the more a person identifies with their particular ethnic group, the more suspicious and hostile they become of foreigners. The more a person identifies with their set of beliefs (religion, communism, libertarianism, etc) the more suspicious and hostile they get towards other people who don't identify with them.

Thus, if you want peace in the world, you're probably beginning to realise that getting precious over the people, things and ideas you call your own is not going to help: it'll just make things worse a lot the time.

So the next time you get upset because I've said something like, "I believe religion is a farce," ask yourself: 'Why don't I just respond to this comment the same way I would if Jason had just said, "I believe it will rain next week" and it is really rational to get that upset because he thinks differently from me?'

I'm not saying that you shouldn't get upset when someone breaks into your house, just that you should be aware that when someone breaks into your house they are physically threatening you whereas if someone is attacking the ideas you identify with you are in no physical danger whatsoever so reacting aggressively will only turn a polite conversation into a fight and occasionally these fights turn into violent clashes... and if the people fighting have political power they can turn into wars.

I believe that until every human being comes to terms with this aspect of humanity there will never be peace on Earth. If a person is unaware of this dynamic relationship they have with what they define as 'self' and 'non-self' then consider that are a walking powder keg ready to explode in just the right circumstances.

Point 3: I'll add more as I think of them.