Should we interfere with someone else's argument?

[Bafis]

Hello, newcomer here.

This question (or dilemma perhaps) arised to me by a video, which I watched just minutes ago, and it was about a social-experiment, that had to do with the son revealing to its father that he's gay and thus resulting to the parent getting "angry" at his son for this. ( As to why I'm mentioning the whole concept of the video, it will play a role later in my argument). So, that begs the question should we (as outsiders) interfere with someone else's argument and if yes under which circumstance(s)?

Personally, it depends on two factors, whether the argument involves (inter)-personal matters, such as who is going to inherit the great fortune of the great-great-grandfather for example, or societal matters, a case in point being the argument, which took place in the video and homosexuallity being the societal matter, a matter that affects the whole society.

In the first example, personally, I would not interfere in their argument (unless it went really badly sideways, like starting a fight or something like that), because their argument doesn't involve me in any way. On the other hand, in the second example, yes I would take action and interfere with their argument, because simply their argument, or better the ideaology behind the argument, affects directly or indirectly the whole community/society, in which I'm a member, or even me.

So, what do you guys think about it? What is moraly and ethically right to do in these situations? Thanks in advanced for the responses!

[Pattern-chaser]

My view is that you already have a good understanding of all the issues involved, and (maybe?) need no further assistance in your cogitations?

[Pattern-chaser]

Welcome, btw, Bafis, to our forum!

[snt]

Hi! I am a newcomer also.

It is an interesting question, especially when it concerns the nature of morality.

When it concerns parent-child matters, I do not believe that it is morally just for outsiders to interfere in the argument unless the argument is posed in a societal context that would legitimate interference, and of course when social relations would allow or even demand interference (e.g. in the case of a close family relationship in which a person is naturally morally obligated to pick a side for a family member).

As for the question why. Perhaps only parents can make a sound attempt to set 'expectations' before a child is grown up. The expectations, while they allow for failure, also provide a potential for reward. This, from the perspective of the parents, may be the greatest thing that they can provide to their child: their highest love. A fulfilment of the ultimate "good" from the perspective of the parents allows them to provide their greatest love.

When the child turns out to be otherwise, the parents may not be capable of giving their "highest love" and may consider the child "failed". However, the will of the parents should be respected because it cannot be judged from the outside. Therefore, to serve the highest good, it would be immoral for an outsider to interfere in parent-child arguments unless there are special conditions that would allow or demand it, e.g. when society has established that something is immoral or in the case that someone is harmed.

[Bafis]

My view is that you already have a good understanding of all the issues involved, and (maybe?) need no further assistance in your cogitations?

Maybe that's the case, though I had my doubts, that I might not have covered everything (well, everything is impossible, so most of the things is better wording).

Welcome, btw, Bafis, to our forum!

Thanks! Glad to be member!

(Also, I'm not really sure if I'm replying correctly, like perhaps I should have pressed something else in order to send you directly the reply.)

[Sculptor1]

Hello, newcomer here.

This question (or dilemma perhaps) arised to me by a video, which I watched just minutes ago, and it was about a social-experiment, that had to do with the son revealing to its father that he's gay and thus resulting to the parent getting "angry" at his son for this. ( As to why I'm mentioning the whole concept of the video, it will play a role later in my argument). So, that begs the question should we (as outsiders) interfere with someone else's argument and if yes under which circumstance(s)?

Personally, it depends on two factors, whether the argument involves (inter)-personal matters, such as who is going to inherit the great fortune of the great-great-grandfather for example, or societal matters, a case in point being the argument, which took place in the video and homosexuallity being the societal matter, a matter that affects the whole society.

In the first example, personally, I would not interfere in their argument (unless it went really badly sideways, like starting a fight or something like that), because their argument doesn't involve me in any way. On the other hand, in the second example, yes I would take action and interfere with their argument, because simply their argument, or better the ideaology behind the argument, affects directly or indirectly the whole community/society, in which I'm a member, or even me.

So, what do you guys think about it? What is moraly and ethically right to do in these situations? Thanks in advanced for the responses!

If your opinion is sought you have a duty to contribute.
Even to the point of advocate or councillor.

[Pattern-chaser]

(Also, I'm not really sure if I'm replying correctly, like perhaps I should have pressed something else in order to send you directly the reply.)

Don't worry; you're doing fine!

[Bafis]

Hello, newcomer here.

This question (or dilemma perhaps) arised to me by a video, which I watched just minutes ago, and it was about a social-experiment, that had to do with the son revealing to its father that he's gay and thus resulting to the parent getting "angry" at his son for this. ( As to why I'm mentioning the whole concept of the video, it will play a role later in my argument). So, that begs the question should we (as outsiders) interfere with someone else's argument and if yes under which circumstance(s)?

Personally, it depends on two factors, whether the argument involves (inter)-personal matters, such as who is going to inherit the great fortune of the great-great-grandfather for example, or societal matters, a case in point being the argument, which took place in the video and homosexuallity being the societal matter, a matter that affects the whole society.

In the first example, personally, I would not interfere in their argument (unless it went really badly sideways, like starting a fight or something like that), because their argument doesn't involve me in any way. On the other hand, in the second example, yes I would take action and interfere with their argument, because simply their argument, or better the ideaology behind the argument, affects directly or indirectly the whole community/society, in which I'm a member, or even me.

So, what do you guys think about it? What is moraly and ethically right to do in these situations? Thanks in advanced for the responses!

If your opinion is sought you have a duty to contribute.
Even to the point of advocate or councillor.

I think I understand where you are coming from. So, based on your statement, we should take action only if our opinion is expected or asked, otherwise we ought to not get involved, right?

[Sculptor1]

Hello, newcomer here.

This question (or dilemma perhaps) arised to me by a video, which I watched just minutes ago, and it was about a social-experiment, that had to do with the son revealing to its father that he's gay and thus resulting to the parent getting "angry" at his son for this. ( As to why I'm mentioning the whole concept of the video, it will play a role later in my argument). So, that begs the question should we (as outsiders) interfere with someone else's argument and if yes under which circumstance(s)?

Personally, it depends on two factors, whether the argument involves (inter)-personal matters, such as who is going to inherit the great fortune of the great-great-grandfather for example, or societal matters, a case in point being the argument, which took place in the video and homosexuallity being the societal matter, a matter that affects the whole society.

In the first example, personally, I would not interfere in their argument (unless it went really badly sideways, like starting a fight or something like that), because their argument doesn't involve me in any way. On the other hand, in the second example, yes I would take action and interfere with their argument, because simply their argument, or better the ideaology behind the argument, affects directly or indirectly the whole community/society, in which I'm a member, or even me.

So, what do you guys think about it? What is moraly and ethically right to do in these situations? Thanks in advanced for the responses!

If your opinion is sought you have a duty to contribute.
Even to the point of advocate or councillor.

I think I understand where you are coming from. So, based on your statement, we should take action only if our opinion is expected or asked, otherwise we ought to not get involved, right?

Generally, yes.
If there is an issue of abuse suffering or illegal activity, we may want to get involved, or find people whose job it is to sort such things out like police or social workers. But when it comes to intrafamily matters you have to give people the space because outsiders are rarely qualified to understand another's family nuances.

[Bafis]

Hello, newcomer here.

This question (or dilemma perhaps) arised to me by a video, which I watched just minutes ago, and it was about a social-experiment, that had to do with the son revealing to its father that he's gay and thus resulting to the parent getting "angry" at his son for this. ( As to why I'm mentioning the whole concept of the video, it will play a role later in my argument). So, that begs the question should we (as outsiders) interfere with someone else's argument and if yes under which circumstance(s)?

Personally, it depends on two factors, whether the argument involves (inter)-personal matters, such as who is going to inherit the great fortune of the great-great-grandfather for example, or societal matters, a case in point being the argument, which took place in the video and homosexuallity being the societal matter, a matter that affects the whole society.

In the first example, personally, I would not interfere in their argument (unless it went really badly sideways, like starting a fight or something like that), because their argument doesn't involve me in any way. On the other hand, in the second example, yes I would take action and interfere with their argument, because simply their argument, or better the ideaology behind the argument, affects directly or indirectly the whole community/society, in which I'm a member, or even me.

So, what do you guys think about it? What is moraly and ethically right to do in these situations? Thanks in advanced for the responses!

If your opinion is sought you have a duty to contribute.
Even to the point of advocate or councillor.

I think I understand where you are coming from. So, based on your statement, we should take action only if our opinion is expected or asked, otherwise we ought to not get involved, right?

Generally, yes.
If there is an issue of abuse suffering or illegal activity, we may want to get involved, or find people whose job it is to sort such things out like police or social workers. But when it comes to intrafamily matters you have to give people the space because outsiders are rarely qualified to understand another's family nuances.

Interesting! Thank you for sharing your view point!