I think it is both possible and necessary for people to disagree with each other constructively on important matters. All perspectives deserve to be patiently heard, regardless of how egregious they may initially seem; an argument is not invalid simply because it does not affirm the moral superiority of your own position.
However, I also believe there are objective ways of evaluating arguments that reveal certain views hold greater depth and substantive significance than others. Just because opposing views on an issue exist does not imply that their validity or moral weight form a perfectly symmetrical comparison. The complexity of reasoning behind each argument can vary significantly.
Take the classic economic debate on whether the state should intervene in the free market when tackling issues of inequality and poverty. A classical free market economist might argue that a rational state actor would not intervene in the market by providing the poor with any form of subsidies, as doing so would reduce market efficiency and divert resources, creating deadweight losses. The market, they might argue, will eventually correct itself , making short-term disturbances irrelevant in the grand scheme of economic progress. Supporting this perspective is simple, for it only requires demonstrating why government intervention is unnecessary, often relying on theoretical models that assume self-correcting market mechanisms.
In contrast, presenting a compelling interventionist argument requires a far more layered and convoluted argument, allowing it to hold more substance. First, it must establish why government intervention is necessary, often drawing on data regarding wealth inequality, market failures and the social consequences of poverty. Then, it must justify why a specific policy — such as direct cash transfers, progressive taxation or public goods provision — is the most effective approach to address these conditions. Unlike the free market perspective, which only requires using theory-based evidence to establish why there shouldn’t be intervention, the interventionist approach must first deconstruct the theoretical basis of the free market model, then engage with empirical realities beyond it and finally address normative concerns. As a result, while both perspectives contribute to economic discourse, the prior argument is a lot easier to make as it considers fewer factors, making it less analytically demanding and thus not directly comparable to the interventionist perspective.
The same kind of asymmetry arises when comparing the originalist and constitutionalist approaches to interpreting the Constitution. Originalism holds that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its meaning at the time it was drafted, with its words and terms reflecting the historical context in which they were written. To advocate for an originalist perspective, the work is relatively straightforward: One simply needs to have a robust understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution and the ability to argue why this meaning must be preserved. Their focus is solely on how the Constitution was interpreted when it was first drafted and why its interpretation should remain unchanged, in turn dismissing new social conditions as irrelevant.
Constitutionalists, on the other hand, argue that interpretation of the Constitution should evolve alongside changing social contexts and norms in America to reflect contemporary society, as the meaning and value of certain words or concepts may shift over time. This perspective, as such, demands a far more rigorous justification to establish its validity as a compelling argument. To make the case for a contextualized interpretation, constitutionalists must grapple with both the historical conditions in which the Constitution was written, and how its clauses apply to modern society, which requires a more nuanced, multidimensional analysis — one that acknowledges the evolution of society and the legal system. While both perspectives offer valid approaches to interpreting the Constitution, the constitutionalist perspective encompasses a broader scope of validity by considering factors across different time periods, making it a more nuanced and incisive interpretation.
If you have taken this article as my attempt to impose a Keynesian economic perspective or urge for a constitutionalist interpretation of the Constitution, you may have missed the point entirely. The simplified explanation of each argument aims to illustrate the idea that the depth, logic and layers of reasoning behind an argument contribute to its substantive significance. When two arguments operate on vastly different levels of complexity and consideration, treating them as equally valid counterpoints distorts meaningful discourse. Although complexity alone does not make an argument inherently stronger, refuting it also does not simply require an opposing stance — it requires an equally rigorous engagement with its depth, yet we don’t always recognize this fallacy. Recognizing these dynamics ensures that we are not treating all perspectives as equally valid by default. Only in doing so can we hold each other accountable, pushing each other to engage in equal dialogue that can solve issues and change minds.
