‘New York is the capital of America.’ I was on my way to school when I heard a boy arguing up ahead. He turned to the rest of the group and intoned with authority. I edged closer. Most of the others were in agreement, chiming in with ‘yes, of course, it’s New York.’ One boy, however, insisted that they were wrong. ‘Washington DC is the capital’, he said. I listened for a while before intervening. ‘Actually, Washington DC is the capital city of America.’ At that moment, the debate was over. An authority figure had settled it. Nothing left to discuss. They walked on momentarily in silence.
This encounter is so unusual because we rarely see heated disagreements settled so easily in the adult world. With purely objective disagreements about matters of fact, we can often resolve the dispute by consulting an authority or looking up the answer on a search engine. By contrast, purely subjective disagreements on questions like ‘is broccoli tasty?’ or ‘is red a nicer colour than blue?’ can’t be so easily resolved. We recognise that there are no standards to appeal to. It is just a matter of personal preference.
However, many of our disagreements don’t fit easily into either category. The question ‘Is Theresa May a good Prime Minister?’ seems not to be purely subjective. We can evaluate her policies and decisions and assess whether the impact has been positive or negative. We can give reasons one way or the other beyond just saying ‘I like her’ or ‘I don’t’. However, it isn’t entirely objective either. Even if we know exactly what the PM has done we still need to make value judgments about whether that impact has been desirable or not. These value judgments differ for different people.
The disagreements in the messy middle tend to generate the most passion but also, unfortunately, the most misunderstanding and confusion. Other examples might be:
Does social media make the world a better place?
Who is the better footballer: Messi or Ronaldo?
Did the UK make the right decision to leave the EU?