Nothing can be accomplished by arguing for moral imperatives from a premise that the other side does not agree with. People spend so much time pushing for what we need to change in a society, and what a moral future looks like; only to become increasingly frustrated that the other side can’t agree on any of these plans. People feel that their solutions are obvious, and that anyone with common sense would have to agree. But these solutions are only obvious if you assume all of premises that they came from. And in an increasingly divided world, that is not an assumption that should ever be made.
Many times, I find myself in conversations where someone asks me a yes-or-no question on a moral matter, but I find myself unable to speak, because either answer first assumes things that I don’t agree with. For example, trying to identify whether men or women have been historically more oppressed and which side needs special treatment to achieve equality first assumes that men and women should be viewed as two opposed entities, something that I don’t agree with.
The inability to speak due to drastically different premises is a concerning phenomenon. In such cases it is better to take the disagreement down to a deeper level, to try and find an even more fundamental premise that is agreed on, and then work forward from there. But what happens when we cannot find that fundamental shared premise? We will lose all ability to reason with one another. And where reason fails, people fall back on force.


