This sounds like a situation in which some people present may consider some other people’s beliefs to be an individual-level existential threat — whether to their identity, to their lives, or to their immortal souls. In other words, the problem is not just that these folks disagree with each other, but that they may feel threatened by one another, and by the propagation of one another’s beliefs.
Consider: ”If you convince people of your belief, people are more likely to try to kill me.” ″If you convince people of your belief, I am more likely to become corrupted.”
One framework for dealing with situations like this is called liberalism. In liberalism, we imagine moral boundaries called “rights” around individuals, and we agree that no matter what other beliefs we may arrive at, that it would be wrong to transgress these boundaries. (We imagine individuals, not groups or ideas, as having rights; and that every individual has the same rights, regardless of properties such as their race, sex, sexuality, or religion.)
Agreeing on rights allows us to put boundaries around the effects of certain moral disagreements, which makes them less scary and more peaceful. If your Christian colleague will agree, for instance, that it is wrong to kidnap and torture someonein an effort to change that person’s sexual identity, they may be less threatening to the others.
This sounds like a situation in which some people present may consider some other people’s beliefs to be an individual-level existential threat — whether to their identity, to their lives, or to their immortal souls. In other words, the problem is not just that these folks disagree with each other, but that they may feel threatened by one another, and by the propagation of one another’s beliefs.
Consider:
”If you convince people of your belief, people are more likely to try to kill me.”
″If you convince people of your belief, I am more likely to become corrupted.”
We are surprised when a local NAACP leader has a calm meeting with a KKK leader. (But possibly not as surprised as the national NAACP leadership were.)
One framework for dealing with situations like this is called liberalism. In liberalism, we imagine moral boundaries called “rights” around individuals, and we agree that no matter what other beliefs we may arrive at, that it would be wrong to transgress these boundaries. (We imagine individuals, not groups or ideas, as having rights; and that every individual has the same rights, regardless of properties such as their race, sex, sexuality, or religion.)
Agreeing on rights allows us to put boundaries around the effects of certain moral disagreements, which makes them less scary and more peaceful. If your Christian colleague will agree, for instance, that it is wrong to kidnap and torture someone in an effort to change that person’s sexual identity, they may be less threatening to the others.