Prompt: SOCIAL & POLITICAL

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Contrasting points of view in a discussion are neither necessary nor sufficient for progress.

For instance, consider the claim that contrasting points of view are necessary for progress.  Logically, this would be stated as the following conditional.  If there are no contrasting points of view in a discussion, then there is no progress.  But, there is progress when there are no contrasting points of view.  Therefore, the claim is false.  This is easily seen by considering what might happen in a nuclear power plant.  Imagine that there are five supervisors with keys that would  deactivate the plant in the case of a meltdown.  Furthermore, imagine what would happen if all of the supervisors were required for some reason to discuss prior to the turning of their key their reasons for deactivating the plant.  Furthermore, imagine what would happen if an unanimous vote were required in order to deactivate the plant.  If this situation actually did come to pass, and one supervisor held a contrasting point of view concerning what they ought to do in this situation, then the power plant might melt down.  Clearly, then, progress does not require contrasting points of view. 

Now, consider the claim that contrasting points of view are sufficient for progress.  Logically, this would be stated as the following conditional.  If there are contrasting points of view in a discussion, then there is progress.  This might appear to be true at first glance.  But, there are instances in which contrasting points of view lead to stalemates, and therefore, no progress.  Consider present-day American politics concerning global warming.  One side of this debate believes that global warming is not a real phenomenon, and that climate change is best thought of in terms of normal climatic variation throughout history.  The other side of the debate believes that human industrial progress is largely responsible for the warming of the globe.  Currently, there is no consensus, and therefore, all efforts to enact legislation to protect our environment are mired in debate.  What is worse still is that climate scientists are warning the public that time is running short: the earth is warming, and we must change our lifestyles.  Clearly, contrasting points of view have not lead to progress on this very significant issue.  Therefore, contrasting points of view in a discussion are not sufficient for progress. 

If contrasting points of view in a discussion are neither necessary nor sufficient for progress, than what are some criteria for progress?  This is a good question.  But, unfortunately, the very concept ‘progress’, as is demonstrated by the climate-change example, is steeped in controversy and debate.  Some people think that ‘progress’ is the ending of all human labor, with machines to replace the most tedious aspects of the labor process.  Other people think that progress is represented as a “return to our roots” as farmers perhaps, and simple people living from the land.  It is likely that this debate is something that does not benefit much from contrasting points of view, since to make progress as a group, we need to first agree to what kind of progress we aspire.