Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us

Product Information

We need to improve our ability to communicate with one another and expand ourselves to embrace a more triune way of viewing ourselves, each other and the world. Join Dr Arianne Shahvisi, Senior Lecturer in Ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS), for the launch of her new book, Arguing for a Better World. This is a fascinating, pragmatic resource for those who want to make a difference but don’t know where to start.

Arianne was joined in conversation by Bobbie Farsides, Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at BSMS, for readings from the book and a discussion on some of the topics. The book and content are bite-sized but this is a book that you can re-read and come back to over and over again depending on the situation you are facing in life. An antidote to division: a book that arms you with the ability to build good arguments and find a path through conflict and confusion. These questions tap into some of today's most divisive issues, and finding an answer can often lead to confusion and resentment.

And she’s upfront about her own politics; by page two she’s labelled the leaders of nine major nations as fascists. In this incisive debut, Shahvisi, a senior ethics lecturer at the Brighton and Sussex medical school, contends that philosophy “can help us to uncover and confront” ideology that underlies various forms of disempowerment and oppression. I misunderstood the aim of this book and thought that it would provide ideas to facilitate discussions between people with different perspectives in the hope of bringing people together in a deeper understanding. It was also a chance to become wealthy, but Jill, who was dedicated to following the rules, didn’t question where the money went.

Which is a troubling way to defend prejudice – it’s not our fault we discriminate against you, it’s yours for being the way you are. Many of us know what we think about inequality, but flounder when asked for our reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate - especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide. Oppression, she helps us understand, is a “collective harm” that causes “long-term, widespread, predictable suffering, which, crucially, is preventable. Fortune 500 CEOs won’t like Desmond’s message for rewriting the social contract—which is precisely the point.

Take a middle of the road approach (argues some combination is necessary yet doesn’t explicitly state any as what is actually being discussed which makes it inaccessible to individuals newer to the subject).