Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us

Product Information

A key to her falling out with her family was orchestrated by Jim Bob, who introduced her to missionary Derick Dillard. As you mention in your article, that requires courage and the willingness to show ourselves vulnerable.

Gary Lineker might nod in agreement… She’s also astute at spotting plausible deniability, a staple tactic of the more educated members of the far-right.When a school principal is forced to resign because the kids got a glimpse of the stone genitals hanging off Michelangelo’s David, reason is quickly packing its bag for a holiday on the far side of the universe. We’ve all wrestled with questions like these, whether we’re shouting at a relative across the dinner table, quarreling with old classmates on social media, or chatting late into the night with friends.

Political and generational divides often dictate how questions such as these are answered, and when asked most people give automatic answers that roughly align with the broader position they believe is right – though many flounder when asked to detail their reasoning. These questions tap into some of today's most divisive issues, and finding an answer can often lead to confusion and resentment. Ask someone on the radical right to define wokeness or critical race theory or white privilege, or democracy for that matter, and all you are likely to get is a steaming pile of verbal mush dumped on social justice issues one would have thought long settled.Clear writing and is helping me shape my often jumbled up feelings/thoughts regarding conversations around social justice and speaking points. It shows us how philosophy, far from being irrelevant, is essential for navigating today's world of client journalism-manufactured, social media-manipulated outrage.

At times this is an uncomfortable and challenging read, particularly for me as a White, middle classes and pretty privileged person but that just shows how crucial it is that people should read this book and how important the information contained within it is.We need to improve our ability to communicate with one another and expand ourselves to embrace a more triune way of viewing ourselves, each other and the world. The binary, low-res lens that shows only "right" and "wrong": what a beautiful metaphor to describe polarization that hinders us to find a good enough pathway (v/o navigation) in our complex world.

In Arguing for a Better World , philosopher Arianne Shahvisi shows us how to work through thorny moral questions by examining their parts in broad daylight, equipping us to not only identify our own positions but to defend them as well. Many people give kneejerk answers that roughly align with their broader belief system, but flounder when asked for their reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate—especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide. Furthermore, so many full-time jobs are being recast as contracted, fire-at-will gigs, “not a break from the norm as much as an extension of it, a continuation of corporations finding new ways to limit their obligations to workers. We've all wrestled with questions like these, whether we're shouting at a relative across the dinner table, quarreling with old classmates on social media, or chatting late into the night with friends. Join Dr Arianne Shahvisi, Senior Lecturer in Ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS), for the launch of her new book, Arguing for a Better World.Which is a troubling way to defend prejudice – it’s not our fault we discriminate against you, it’s yours for being the way you are. The author describes current social issues and states her opinions but doesn't get to any solutions. Further, she argues, real change is possible on a personal level: though an individual can’t reverse climate change, for example, it’s possible to “minimise our interpersonal contribution to racism and sexism.