Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation

Abstract

Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into negotiations and when would this be unwarranted or even fallacious? Second, what is the nature of a compromise? What does it mean to settle instead of resolve a difference of opinion, and what might be the dialectical consequences of mistaking a compromise for a substantial resolution? Our main aim is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation and to show how arguing disputants can shift to negotiation in a dialectically virtuous way.

Bothsiderism

“…A different version of the fallacy is found in Jan Albert van Laar and Krabbe ( 2016a , 2018a ; b ). The Fallacy of Middle Ground, as they call it, arises in the context of participants in a critical discussion (persuasion dialogue) shifting to a negotiation dialogue.…”

“…The Fallacy of Middle Ground, as they call it, arises in the context of participants in a critical discussion (persuasion dialogue) shifting to a negotiation dialogue. 16 According to van Laar and Krabbe, the Fallacy of the Middle Ground “can be seen as a fallacy based on the illusion that a compromise equals a first-order resolution of the difference of opinion that prompted the parties to compromise” ( 2018 : 346). They distinguish two variants of this view.…”

“…They distinguish two variants of this view. The first is where a participant to a dialogue may “mislead oneself or others to accept a compromise Gamma as one’s favorite policy choice, beguiled by the popular saying that the truth must be somewhere in the middle” ( 2018 : 346). Crucially, they go on to note that this often takes the existence of a dispute as itself evidence that the truth is between two extremes.…”

“…In the theoretical literature, Bothsiderism goes by many names: the Fallacy of Middle Ground (van Laar and Krabbe 2018 ; Sterling 2019 ), the Fallacy of Bargaining (Walton and Krabbe 1995 ), the Fallacy of Objections (Whately 1855 ) the Fallacy of (or to) Moderation, Argumentum ad Temperantiam , 5 False Compromise, the Golden Mean Fallacy, or the Gray Fallacy (Sterling 2019 ). One might also add Fallacy of Disagreement, given the salience of disagreement to the phenomenon.…”

Argumentation and Persistent Disagreement

“…Negotiation is a dialogue type where the parties begin with a conflict of interest and a need for cooperation, their main goal is to make a deal, and the parties aim at getting the best for themselves (Walton and Krabbe 1995, p. 72). This does not pertain only to conflicts of interest, but dialogues starting from differences of opinion might also be shifted to negotiation (van Laar and Krabbe 2018).…”