| | Let's say that a professor whom you admire and largely agree with says something that you strongly disagree with in class. Now you have two choices. You can raise your hand and take him to task for it, or you can politely question him, and then later, in private, voice your disagreement in a way that won't cause him to feel threatened and defensive in front of his class. If you attack him in public, you may lose the opportunity to convince him in private, and you're certainly not going to convert him by embarrassing and humiliating him in front of his students. So, I think that whether you voice your disagreement with someone depends on what it is that you wish to accomplish.
How many times have you convinced someone by a confrontational argument? Probably never. There can be no "moral duty" always to pronounce judgment against someone you disagree with, regardless of the consequences. You have to ask yourself, what is it that I can reasonably expect to accomplish?
I play poker with some people on a weekly basis, and one of the players is a friendly guy, who has invited me to his apartment occasionally to talk with him and his wife, both of whom are Catholic, and I gather pretty devout, as they attend mass regularly. They sent both their sons to Catholic Schools, and the man told me that at one point he was interested in becoming a Christian Brother. (Btw, we both agree that the Christian Brothers are bad news.) But I have never tried to argue religion with him. He is my age -- 67 -- and, if I know anything, I know I'm not going to convince someone that age and with that kind of history to change his mind on his religious convictions, especially as it would put him in conflict with his wife, who is unlikely to change her views, even if he changes his. I might, however, alienate him enough to strain our relationship and make mutual interaction difficult and unpleasant.
I am reminded of Rand's caveat on trying to convert your parents. Don't do it. You won't succeed anyway and you'll probably wind up ruining whatever relationship you already have. That doesn't mean that you have to lie to them or pretend to agree with their views, but it does mean that you are probably better off not trying to convert them to your way of thinking. I believe this same principle can apply to other social relationships as well. You have to ask yourself, realistically what can I expect to accomplish by arguing with this person. If you are going to interact with him or her on a personal level, you may do more harm than good, although you can certainly express your views, and without pressing the issue, a polite statement of your differences may be warranted.
Just something to think about. I've always taken Rand's "Judge and be prepared to be judged" dictum as applying to one's private evaluations, not as an imperative to verbally denounce everyone you disagree with.
- Bill
|
|
