Recently I had an op-ed in Stuff publications that argued we should embrace the good in disagreement—that passionate disagreement isn’t a bad thing, or merely a necessary price we pay for democracy, but a way that we love our neighbours. Not every disagreement is loving, but I argued that “when we’re so used to seeing good-faith dissenters dismissed as haters and bigots, we need to recalibrate how we understand disagreement.”  

Of course, that leads to a reasonable question—what does good faith disagreement look like, and how can we do it?

To answer that question, I’m going to borrow from the Inkling, an initiative that was created “to help nurture positive public conversations in Aotearoa New Zealand.” The Inkling hosted conversations about important issues and it established rules of engagement to support these gatherings. With their permission, I’ve produced a modified version of the rules which incorporates some of what I described in my Stuff article. I think these norms offer the prospect of constructive and good-faith debate even about the sensitive issues that are most hotly contested.

Respect: everyone who participates in debate has dignity.

1. Civility should characterise all our interactions. Disagreement is inevitable, discourtesy is not. Debate should be passionate but not polarised. Constructive disagreement is essential to the kind of creative tension that does justice to complex issues. Civility makes this increased understanding possible.
2. Assume good faith. People often want similar good outcomes but understand the associated challenges and issues quite differently. Assume that disagreement about what we value and how to achieve it is evidence of honest engagement, not bad motives.
3. Everyone has agency. Acknowledge that everyone has the moral freedom and responsibility to make meaningful decisions for themselves, even when we disagree with them. Debate should therefore aim at persuasion, not compulsion.

Love: the pursuit of truth and goodness is important.

1. Disagreement should be motivated by love. To love is “to will the good of the other”. Whether that’s the good of an individual or the common good of a society, disagreement is legitimate when it’s an attempt to pursue what is true and valuable.
2. Important ideas deserve to be tested. Our beliefs, values and experiences can be powerful, influencing not only our lives but those around us. The more powerful something is, the more important it is to test it and scrutinise it appropriatley
3. Love does not mean moral relativism. When someone cares enough about what is true and good that they are willing to challenge and unsettle us, they are doing us a service. Leaving us to hold an erroneous belief without offering an alternative would not be loving.

Humility: we need others to help us learn and perceive truth.

1. Viewpoint diversity is valuable. We need each other to fill gaps in our own understanding and experience, to open our eyes to competing explanations and viewpoints, and to help us see what we are missing.
2. We all have assumptions. All of us come to these conversations with prior commitments and beliefs which shape our views. We should all strive to acknowledge and examine our own assumptions and biases, what’s behind them, and invite others to identify and challenge them.
3. Require of yourself what you hope for in others. We’d all like others to be open to our arguments and to give them a fair hearing, so we need to extend them the same courtesy and openness. Engage with the best possible opposing arguments, not the worst.