Facione & Gittens (2016) state, ‘Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree’

Introduction

Facione & Gittens (2016) state, "Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree" (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

• Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist – a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
• Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
• How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
• How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
• How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.

As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:

• Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
• Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
• Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?