This year, I have the privilege of teaching Aitken’s first-ever VCE Philosophy course. It’s still early days, and as far as planning goes, I’m more or less a day ahead of the students, but so far, so good. One of the things I enjoy about teaching philosophy is that it is the perfect place to explore difficult, complex, and controversial ideas. 

It’s not my job to tell them how to combine quadratic equations. It’s my job to ask them if it’s reasonable to believe in God. It’s not my job to tell them about photosynthesis or protein folding. I get to ask them whether humans have free will. I get to ask them if we live in a simulation or if a machine could ever have feelings or consciousness. I get to question their morality. Could killing someone ever be justified? Do the poor deserve their lot, or do the rich owe an unpaid debt to society? 

I am certain that at least one of these questions has provoked an immediate answer from you. You know exactly where you stand on the issue and could argue strongly for your case. And let me assure you, there will be someone else in this very room who has the opposite answer to you – and feels just as strongly about it. 

So how do you think these questions go in a room full of teenagers? We’ve all dealt with teenagers. A conversation about dinner can be enough to start a roaring argument. Trying to get students to study Macbeth will turn them into a persuasive genius to rival Andrew Bolt, full of anger about how they “are never going to use this in real life.” 

Teenagers being how they are – angry, angsty, self-assured, overconfident, hyper-opinionated but uninformed – how can I host a civil conversation about the existence of God? About right and wrong? As I said, it’s early days, but so far so good. It’s true that the kind of student who picks philosophy has a fairly curious temperament anyway, but there’s something else, another trick up my sleeve. I saw this problem arising from a mile away, so I got out ahead of it. Instead of starting the year with God, Ethics, or Free Will, I introduced students to the Principle of Charity. 

What is it then? The Principle of Charity is about finding the truth, not winning the fight. In short, it's about intellectual charity; charitable dialogue. 

Think about this – we do care about being right, and that makes sense. The more true and correct opinions we have, the better we can navigate this world, factually and ethically. Our decisions will be better the more we are right. So if you care about being right – and I think you all should – then being wrong is a gift. If someone can successfully argue the case that we are wrong, then hooray! Rejoice! We now know more than we did 5 minutes ago. Our opinions are more up-to-date now, more correct. Paradoxically, by speaking openly and acknowledging and accepting when we are wrong, we come closer to being right more of the time. 

This is the first concept I try to convey to my students. When we have a discussion, let’s be seriously curious about the truth. If we are right, let’s gently help others to see that clearly. But if other people are making arguments that go against our opinions, maybe it’s because they are right – and there is no need, whatsoever, to be upset by that. If the evidence and arguments stack up against you, joyfully let that wall break down. Hooray – by accepting you are wrong, you just became more right. What a gift being wrong is. 

Can you recall a time when someone in your life admitted they were wrong? Did it diminish your opinion of them? I'm willing to bet that you respected them for it. 

But let's be honest, admitting you're wrong is often easier said than done. We can only try.

Sometimes, someone's opinion is not just wrong, but annoyingly wrong. They won’t let up, they won’t see reason. Sometime their opinion is offensive. So what do you do in those situations? 

First, acknowledge that your opinion may be as baffling to them as theirs is to you. Next, understand that shouting at someone, cancelling them, or calling them an idiot will never change their mind. No one has ever been convinced they were wrong when nobody listened to what they had to say in the first place. If you're going to argue with someone, do it respectfully and on their terms. Listen to what they have to say and respond directly to what they actually said. 

So far, I've seen great results from this kind of thinking in the classroom. I've observed 16- and 17-year-olds engaging in many conversations where they strongly disagree, but remain respectful and seek to understand each other. I've heard a 17-year-old say, "That's really convincing. I think you're right!" 

One girl in my class has radically different political views from her father. After discussing the principle of charity in class, she came in one day and said, "He started going on about it again last night. But I just thought about how he really believes what he says in the same way I do. He's not trying to provoke me. So I just asked him more questions about it to try and understand it. I still disagree, but at least we didn't fight." 

Calmer households. More empathetic teenagers. 10 points for the principle of charity. 

But it's not just teenagers who need to hear this. If they can do it, so can you. As our algorithmic overlords tear us further apart and our information landscape develops new fissures, how can we keep talking to those we disagree with? How can we focus on finding the truth rather than winning the fight? 

Here are a few practical ideas you can start applying in your own life. These are the same tips I give my students: 

Listen carefully to someone's arguments, and don't interrupt them. But that’s easy. We’re all already good at that, right.  

Once you’ve listened, try this. It's a bit harder.

Before making your own arguments, repeat their arguments back to them in a way they would agree with, without ridiculing them. For example, "Jack, let me check I've understood your points. You believe our welfare system should be abolished because it shouldn't fall to tax-paying individuals to support those who choose not to work. You believe that welfare systems should be replaced with mandatory community service work to upskill the unemployed and push them toward finding employment of their own. Do I have that right?" Jack might say yes, and then you can explain why he's wrong. Or he might say no and clarify his point. Either way, you have avoided making a strawman and demonstrated that you understand his argument, even if you disagree with him. 

Another way to ease into tricky conversations is to focus on finding common ground first. For example, "Martha, I absolutely agree that our world is heading toward a climate disaster and that we need to take urgent action. Your point about animal extinction rates was spot on – it's a tragedy. So I agree that we need to do something; I just believe your proposed solution is too extreme..." 

Would you like to be more charitable? For podcast fans, check out the “Principle of Charity” podcasts, where genuine experts with opposing views have charitable conversations. For the more practically-minded, try using a few of these phrases in your next tricky conversation: 

"I don't understand the point you made. Can you try to explain it differently?" 

"Hmm, that's an interesting idea. I hadn't thought of it that way before." 

"I agree with the first point you made, absolutely. I'm just not sure that your conclusion follows. Can I explain why?”  “I see what you mean, and I can see why you feel that way."  

“I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting your views." 

“I’ll tell you what I think and maybe you can help me understand what I’ve got wrong”  

“That’s a really good counterargument. I suppose my view doesn’t hold up”  

And finally: “Let’s agree to disagree and leave it there.” 

 If you can’t agree – if minds won’t be changed - yours or theirs – maybe just leave it. If it gets nasty, if an insult is thrown – just leave it! If you find yourself losing patience, just leave it! Is your argument about politics really going to change the politicians? It’s OK to not have opinions on some things. 

Could you afford to be more charitable in conversation? Could the way you argue with your husband, wife, son, daughter, or friend be healthier? If so, treat them as someone just as intelligent as yourself, with just as good reasons for their beliefs as you have. Treat being wrong as the gift it is; be open to the possibility that you just might be wrong, and the fact that you often are. To let go of a belief is to learn something new. Let’s inject some curiosity back into our conversations. Remember, the greatest gift you can give someone is not just your attention, but your understanding. So, let's listen with our hearts and minds open, and strive to learn and grow together. With empathy and kindness, we can turn every conversation into an opportunity to connect, learn, and create a better world for ourselves and those around us. 

The Principal's Lecture Series is a bi-annual curated gathering where speakers share experiences and new ideas to a small gathering. The next event is planned for Tuesday 22 August between 6pm and 7.30pm.

Follow us on social media for further details of speakers and a link to book for this free event.

ACE Program Launch