ABSTRACT
Too often, doing philosophy is modeled after fighting a battle or making war. Arguments are attacked, shot down (like a plane) or sunk (like a ship). Theses are defended, defeated, or demolished (like the walls of a city). Ideas (like people) are killed and destroyed.1 There are clearly problems with doing philosophy in this way. There is unfairness inherent in the practice, along with its tendency to undercut the possibility of reaching truly justified views. Fortunately, there is a peacemaking alternative. This way of doing philosophy that, while seeking to determine what are the most justified philosophical views, is committed to
1 a fair-mindedness that, among other things, puts the most favorable interpretation on the views of one’s philosophical opponents,
2 an openness that reaches out to understand challenging new philosophical views, and 3 a self-criticalness that requires modifying or abandoning one’s philosophical views should the weight of available
evidence require it.
