2)Two people are in an important disagreement.One is right, but using the ethically unacceptable methods.One is wrong, but using the right methods.How would you bring them into reconciliation?
If the methods are correct how can the person be wrong? I'm confused... But either way, hold a vote. It is the easiest and most acceptable way to prove someone right or wrong. It will force the party that is wrong to accept it. But be sure that those who are voting understand the issue!
I am also a bit confused by the question. Do you mean that, during the argument, the person who is right is being physically abusive (or something like that)? Whereas the wrong person is being polite and respectful? If that is the case, and I am not completely misreading the question, I think that introducing some sort of mediator would be the way to go. This would hopefully make the disagreement more civil. If this does not work, then I suppose a vote could be held. But who would vote? Would a simple majority be all that is required? Unless both parties agree to the conditions beforehand, a vote could be troublesome.
If the methods are correct how can the person be wrong? I'm confused...
ReplyDeleteBut either way, hold a vote. It is the easiest and most acceptable way to prove someone right or wrong. It will force the party that is wrong to accept it. But be sure that those who are voting understand the issue!
I am also a bit confused by the question. Do you mean that, during the argument, the person who is right is being physically abusive (or something like that)? Whereas the wrong person is being polite and respectful? If that is the case, and I am not completely misreading the question, I think that introducing some sort of mediator would be the way to go. This would hopefully make the disagreement more civil. If this does not work, then I suppose a vote could be held. But who would vote? Would a simple majority be all that is required? Unless both parties agree to the conditions beforehand, a vote could be troublesome.
ReplyDelete