A Search For Truth

I’ve been involved in more arguments than I’d like to count. Most arise out of the course of practicing law. The structure of a litigated resolution demands argument by the respective parties. My professors taught that the adversarial system intentionally pits opposing viewpoints before a neutral fact finder. When done correctly and each side effectively presents its own interests and uncovers the flaws of the other, advocates of the adversarial system opine that truth will emerge through the vigorous contest between these opposing points of view.

I believe in the adversarial system and have see it work beautifully in the discovery of truth. But even this system fails to persuade the entrenched litigant who refuses to see any perspective other than her own. In my experience, the adversarial system especially fails to persuade those who are not only convinced of their correctness, but insist on others being wrong. This a fundamental goal of the adversary system is to present disputed issues before a neutral fact finder rather than wait for opposing parties to reach a mutually agreed upon resolution.

Even though I know better, I have fallen prey to the temptation of needing to be right at the cost of requiring that all others who disagree be wrong. Being right was simply not enough. Over time the pleasure of being right, especially when I truly was, simply faded away as the process of achieving my success came at the high price of creating wedges and burning bridges that once connected opponents and allowed us to continue as fierce friends. One wise judge once taught me the rule that lawyers could be truly mad at each other for 24 hours. But once those 24 hours had passed, regardless of how right or wrong the other had been, it was time to return to being friends.

That seed of an idea has percolated within my mind for many years. Perhaps whenever I find myself in an argument where both parties feel the need to be both right and that the other person be wrong, perhaps neither party is actually right. Though trained to highlight the strengths of my argument and to limit the discussion and even hide any weaknesses of my own argument, I realize that if I need the other person to be wrong, odds are that I am no longer seeking the truth but merely trying to prove that I was right.

That is not a noble cause.

As we strive through vigorous and impassioned debate and even argument, I hope that when we find ourselves as adversaries we will always keep in mind that when we argue we do not sit in a neutral fact-finding position. That realization alone can help us in our tone and our presentation. We need thoughtful and energized discourse from divergent positions as we seek to find truth. But let us strive for the noble quest. Let us worry less whether we are right and let us focus on finding that which is true.