As it happens, I agree on this point. Especially since we, in America, still mostly respect the notion of live-and-let-live combined with the notion of agreeing to disagree.
But I can understand the people who argue as well…
Throughout history and even in the present day, there have been states out there that have adopted a state religion that are carrying out some version of a religion’s meta ethics combined with whatever political expediencies they can get away with. These states are the perpetrators of violence against people and they are the main reason I think that people do argue.
People just can’t seem to keep their philosophy and their politics separate and this is because it’s not possible.
Philosophy as I understand it asks the same questions I have asked of you:
- What is the nature of reality?
- What do we know and how do we know it? (What is the means of knowledge… is knowledge possible?)
- What should we do? (What is the nature of good and evil… what is appropriate to pursue and what is inappropriate?)
- (Really 3a)… How should we deal with other people? (When is it permissible to kill someone? When is it appropriate to use force? Does anyone else even deserve to live?)
Philosophical systems usually develop an ordering of which ones tend to determine the other ones.
Religions all have philosophical content. And they often end up trying to create on this world what their beliefs say is good in this world.
I’d love it if all philosophies/religions assert that you should be kind. They don’t say so under all circumstances. You just can’t be sure what you’re going to get in the way of behavior, theist or not.
I’d love it if people live out their beliefs privately and if they stopped agitating for what the government should force certain people to do, but they wont.
As long as you have people that believe in the will of the majority imposed upon a section of the people by force, people can and should argue. That is neither “live and let live” nor “agree to disagree”.