Everyday Philosophy: 3 rules for discussing controversial topics

In today’s political climate, how do we do that? How can we come together and seek some common ground or understanding? What are the mechanics of doing that? Is there some script or set of ground rules?

Well, this is a different kind of question demanding a different kind of answer. Usually in this column, we look at the pros and cons or the for and against of an argument before reaching some irritatingly ambiguous conclusion. This week, though, Steve is asking for advice. I’ll assume that most people reading this agree it’s a good thing to “come together and seek some understanding” in today’s political climate. So, we won’t look at two sides but instead look at three tips to help Steve in his quest.

A few years ago, the philosopher David Chalmers compiled a list of “guidelines for respectful, constructive, and inclusive philosophical discussion.” Chalmers argued these are true in a philosophical setting — seminars, conferences, and so on — but I think they are just as handy for Steve’s question. I’ll use Chalmers’ document as a starting point and pepper in some examples and philosophical allusions just to add a bit of spice.

So, here are the “ground rules” for coming together.

First, be respectful

One of the largest obstacles to any meaningful conversation is the flag-waving lure of angry tribalism. When we start a discussion about things like politics or religion, we often retreat to the defensive. We lash out. We snarl and slobber like a wolf protecting its territory. Worse still, we treat the other person as an enemy to repel — a traitor, a heretic, an idiot. So, if we’re to have a good discussion, we must start from a position of respect. For Chalmers, this means being nice, not interrupting, not rolling your eyes or sneering, and not assuming the other person is lying or conniving. In short, it’s all the things your teacher taught you when you were six years old but somehow forgot.

In their 2018 bestseller How Democracies Die, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt highlighted how the erosion of respect as a political norm has led to increased polarization. They argued that democratic systems rely on “mutual toleration,” a basic respect between competing political groups. Without this norm, we fall into a cycle of retaliation and division, with opponents treated not as rivals but as existential threats. For Levitsky and Ziblatt, then, respect is not merely politeness — it’s essential to the survival of our political structures.

Second, be constructive

When you talk to someone, do not see it as a competitive debate. There are no winners and losers here, but rather, if all goes to plan, you’re both winners — you’ll both have deeper, wider, and more robust insights than before. As Chalmers puts it, a philosophical discussion “is not a zero-sum game.” You don’t have to force the other person into the mud and proclaim yourself the Overlord of Political Discourse to have a successful discussion. If someone presents a position you disagree with, it’s better to find a compromise than seek to burn it down. Chalmers puts it well when he says, “Objections are fine, but it’s also always OK to be constructive, building on a speaker’s project or strengthening their position. Even objections can often be cast in a constructive way.”

Let’s say Steve is talking to a friend about immigration policy. His friend argues for stricter border controls, while Steve advocates for more open borders and humanitarian aid. Rather than framing the conversation as an “open versus closed” debate, Steve could acknowledge the legitimate concerns about immigration. By recognizing the friend’s worries while still advocating for a humane approach, Steve can move the conversation from polarized opposition to a more balanced, solution-oriented discussion. The fact is, things like the immigration debate are not binary. There is a scale to every position, and it’s best to see a discussion as a way to identify where someone falls on that scale.

Third, be inclusive

When you’re passionate about something — or when you’ve spent an hour reading about it the night before — it’s easy to get on a pedestal. You want to share your ideas and monologue your way to impressed applause. If that’s what you want, set up a YouTube channel. Upload yourself ranting and preaching to your heart’s content and share the URL. Because if you actually want a discussion, you need to let someone else get a word in. Do not go on and on. Don’t hold on too long to the talking stick.

In the ancient world, the dangers and disappointments of a monologue are why Plato disliked books. Plato thought that the only intellectually rigorous activity worth repeating was dialectic. It was a back-and-forth discussion, which (as we saw earlier) seeks to construct rather than destroy our ideas. When you read a book, though, you cannot talk back. These days, you might send an ambitious email to the author, but it’s not the same. A book is passive and one-way, and, for Plato at least, it’s a far inferior pedagogic experience.

Don’t forget the rules

I really appreciate Steve’s question because it also highlights something that we perhaps don’t appreciate much anymore: the fact that there are rules or “scripts” to having a productive and meaningful conversation. Coming together in today’s polarized political climate requires more than just good intentions; it requires thoughtful mechanics.

Respect must be the starting point because without it conversations inevitably deteriorate into angry standoffs. You need to actively work to construct meaning from the conversation, even when it would be easier to just tear the other person down. And finally, you have to ensure that everyone gets to contribute. Discussions should be inclusive, not platforms for self-aggrandizing monologues.

So, there are two things here. First, we need rules or principles if we’re to move forward. Second, Chalmers’ principles — respect, constructiveness, and inclusiveness — are some of the best starting points you can find.