There are initiatives like this. I recently read about one where women actively pro and against abortion had meals together and managed to form friendships, though there was little shifting of the opinions on abortion, If I remember correctly, some of the hatred got sucked out of these particular women’s relations.
Another thing I think of is that in debates one often finds cherry picking.
Like if one is critical of psychiatric overprescription one often immediately gets asked why one would deprive a schizphrenic of their meds. IOW a situation is treated as binary when it is not. Perhaps, as you say, both sides could agree one some areas of over medication, before they tackle tougher issues. This could be part of a virtue finding discussion or it could simply be a good rule of thumb within fault finding discussions: try not to make everything binary, unless it truly is.
It is unpleasant to immediately have holes pointed out (or posited). On the other hand, this is a philosophy forum, so assertions of ideas are pretty much asking to have their faults found.
So to find virtue in this OP, I would say that it is good if one can, in addition to pointing out faults, to also mention areas of agreement. If one only focuses on faults, then the discussion can get toxic fast.
But then one could also argue that you then can role model this and
find virtue
in fault finding posts.
Show us how it is done.
The moment you paint fault finding posts as a problem, you are joining in the fault finding. And if one is writing a book, one knows the people to go to get stroked. The internet presents people who will show how the reader you do not know disagrees, finds the argument weak
and this can strengthen the book or argument.
And then I am not sure there should be a rule. If one thinks the argument itself is toxic, it becomes an empty ritual if one says this or that small piece is good, but the rest is horrible and dangerous.
We have to expect strong critical reactions, if things are stated as the way things are, or what is good. If we open a thread with something like…
I have been mulling over X, and i wonder if…
or
Let’s explore X. I have some thoughts and am tending towards thinking…
That is, tentitive, openly exploratory, requests for collaboration type openings.
Now you, in particular may think this is how you approach the forums. YOu certainly ask for feedback, are polite, etc. And I would guess you see me as fault finding, rather than virtue finding, fair enough.
The context seems to be someone marketing their book/system. And my experience has been that there is more a presentation of a flexibility on your part, rather than a real flexibility. It has come off as if you have found answers and if we are more fundamentally skeptical, then we don’t get it. Fine. Who isn’t like that at some level, all of us convinced of at least some things we believe in and stubborn about that.
But once one is presenting a system to others as the best or true, it is pretty much a given that this will end up being a fault finding situation. Unless one can easily separate out particulars to like. But once a system is presented, those faults are tied to the virtues. One cannot pick and choose. Does the system actually present a way forward? If not, and I am afraid I don’t think yours does - whether I am correct or not - then my reactions need to be about the faults. I might agree about a specific instance, like the Mall example, months ago. IOW, it was possible, though in that specific case, I didn’t agree. Now, you accepted the criticism, at first, but I think there were systematic problems with the approach. Large blind spots, partly because of how things can look neat in the abstract, but in practice are not so neat. Partly because I think the system you present is not getting at core issues. Certainly if everyone just agreed to follow the ideas in it, tensions in the world would reduce. But that would be true if pretty much any ethical system became the rule for everyone.
What if, to make an actual positive contribution to society you need to rethink at a fundamental level?
What if that is the case?
If that is the case, then us finding virtues is enabling and putting off your dealing with a fundamental set of changes in your idea, both in presentation and content.
I think that is the case. I don’t think you are close to a solution. And I don’t think you are close to knowing how to apply whatever virtues are currently present in your ideas.
I might be wrong. But if I am correct, then the best possible thing is that you deal with fault finding, take it seriously and go back to the drawing board. Or even better, go to a homeless shelter or protest site or some other charged conflict situation, and try to apply your ideas, and see how it goes. Because to me it sounds like you have lovely ideals on paper and are upset that other people do not accept these ideals.
Perhaps you are right. But I think, then, if you are right, then go directly to application. Show the world how these ideas work in concrete situations, problem solving conflicts and conflicts based on value differences. Then the book will catch on.
If you view our criticism as simply not getting how great the ideas you have are, then the criticism will remain as the main response.