I certainly think that some people attack principle P with conscious intent to erode it, based on valuing V, an alternative principle W, or trying to get X from you. Standing up for P in the face of such anti-P partisans can only be done by rejecting their anti-P stance.
However, people will also attack principle P for a variety of other reasons.
P is the foundation of principle Q, which they support. But anti-P propaganda has severed this link in their mind. Appealing for P on the basis of their value for Q might be more effective than a straightforward defense of P.
They actually support P, but they’re surrounded by punitive anti-P partisans. You have to appeal to them by building trust that you’re not an anti-P partisan.
They support P intellectually, but feel no urgency about defending it. You don’t need to defend P to them, but to appeal to them by showing that P is under attack.
That’s a good thought.
I certainly think that some people attack principle P with conscious intent to erode it, based on valuing V, an alternative principle W, or trying to get X from you. Standing up for P in the face of such anti-P partisans can only be done by rejecting their anti-P stance.
However, people will also attack principle P for a variety of other reasons.
P is the foundation of principle Q, which they support. But anti-P propaganda has severed this link in their mind. Appealing for P on the basis of their value for Q might be more effective than a straightforward defense of P.
They actually support P, but they’re surrounded by punitive anti-P partisans. You have to appeal to them by building trust that you’re not an anti-P partisan.
They support P intellectually, but feel no urgency about defending it. You don’t need to defend P to them, but to appeal to them by showing that P is under attack.