Philosophy vs values

Philosophers argue, which is great--until it isn't. Conflict Transformation is a discipline with values. Philosophers can use their instruments to agree with or disagree with those values. 

Philosophers argue for and against violence. Great. In Conflict Transformation we have a value, a starting place from which we develop solutionary options: nonviolence.

Philosophers argue for and against peace, freedoms, and rights. Wonderful. In Conflict Transformation we hold to a value: positive peace, which means peace and justice by peaceable means.

Philosophers may use a notable philosopher's arguments to produce conflicting conclusions. For example, two philosophers can develop arguments for and against society permitting abortion, both leaning into the conclusions offered by a significant theoretician in their discipline, John Rawls (Colgrove, 2024). These arguments may be elegant, intellectually, but in the discipline of Conflict Transformation, we would turn to our values and likely listen first to a person who has been, or might be, pregnant, rather than to two male philosophers making sophisticated arguments about women's bodies and who should control them. May the cosmos bless John Rawls, but may male philosophers one day finally learn to listen to the affected or potentially affected people instead of pronouncing on their fate from an imperious academician's perch.

Reference

Colgrove, N. (2024). Abortion and Public Policy: A Defense of “Naive” Rawlsianism. Independent Review, 29(1), 101–112.