the leading role of dialogue within the training process

As we mentioned previously, case studies are the staple of eth-ics education and etheth-ics training. Many of these cases are guaran-teed to perplex engineering students enough to stimulate lengthy conversation and are substantial enough to create complex conversations about what is ethically correct. In fact, we pursue a dialogic interaction between engineering students to find out a response when the ethical dilemmas arise within the cases.

In this section dialogue is shown as a resource that helps students to answer the challenge provided by ethical dilemmas within the training process (cases). Furthermore, we will char-acterise what dialogue is by comparing it with debate and which features of the dialogue are promoted.

Why dialogue instead of debate? There many differences between a dialogue and a debate. Conversations that begin well (balanced exchange of ideas among people) often produce noth-ing, ending either with reproaches or the conversation evaporat-ing into a non-committal conclusion. It seems to be that people are not naturally capable of having an effective good moral con-versation, as we are not born with the skills needed for it. Instead we have to acquire and cultivate them through practice and for acquiring these skills we propose dialogue instead of debate. The main reason is that through dialogue we will be able to avoid the aforementioned pitfalls. Dialogue increases the likelihood that people will acquire the skills that promote a manner of doing (and living) in which ethical matters (and others) can be success-fully discussed.

In contrast, debate could be another tool to take into account when it is necessary to analyse and evaluate cases, but debate pushes people to discuss within a rigid set of principles (precon-ceptions, beliefs), imposing a fixed position because one is not sympathetic with other positions and resists the idea of new pos-sibilities. From our view point, this possibility is rejected because its connotations do not invite respect for other people’s opinion, not addressing each other within a conversation. Thus debate does not seem to have the adequate features to arrive at com-prehension while taking into account the different point of view inserted into a conversation. In fact, debate promotes confronta-tion and division between ideas instead of reconciling them and constructing new ones. Due to the preceding handicaps, debate does not appear to be the appropriate strategy to address cases when professional engineering dilemmas arise.

The following table summarizes the main differences between dialogue and debate:

DIALOGUE DEBATE

(1) Etymologically refers to: “talk” or

“meaning”: construction and com-prehension

Etymologically refers to: “beating”

or “flowing”: confrontation and division

(2) Openness to change Closed mind

(3) Agreement, consensus, better understanding, new findings

Convincing desire (4) Neither winners nor losers A single winner

(5) Tolerance and respect Inflexibility and rudeness (6) Appreciate silence and pauses Interruptions and impoliteness (7) A way of living in harmony as a

goal

A way to flatten as a medium

To begin with, this set of seven distinctive features shows why dialogue instead of debate should be promoted among engi-neering students, especially in the learning process of exploring ethical matters. In this case, cultural diversity calls for flexibility, tolerance and an open minded way of thinking.

In addition, it is necessary to emphasize that this set of features are supported by the works, previously mentioned (Socrates, Gadamer and Habermas) giving solidity and truthfulness to the dialogue pursued.

(1) The fundamental desire of partners in a dialogue is to investigate a matter to comprehend it through a constructive conversation. We are engaged in dialogue when we speak with one another on the assumption that there is something we have to say to each other. And this fact implies a clear understanding and a very special listening between the interlocutors. In relation to Gadamer’s principles, in a dialogue it is very important to take into account the reception, attention and understanding of the

other because the dialogue has an ontological dimension. The dialogue constitutes the human being. Therefore, in a dialogue certain moral principles are implied because we ask for a respon-sive and understanding attitude from each other.

On the contrary, in a debate, the fundamental desire is to con-vince, in an immediate way, and to get one’s opinion accepted.

Furthermore, everyone involved in a debate is doing the same, thus confrontation inevitably appears because each of the par-ticipants is trying to impose their opinion. In practice, the final consequence is that participants are chiefly engaged in trying to prove each other to be wrong, to destroy the others opinions when they are not compatible with one’s own.

(2) According to Socrates, in a dialogue, there is an increasing enrichment, or clarity, through the constant inquiries between one another. This means that I can not only gain insight into the questions, ideas and beliefs of the other, but also into my own questions, reflections and convictions because in a dialogue I can find out what it is that I want to explore with regard to a prob-lem. For Socrates the problem dispels the human beings’ igno-rance. So, dialogue creates an openness to change because of the acceptance of each other’s viewpoints and alternatives.

In a debate, arguments divergent from mine appear as obsta-cles or nuisances to be removed forcing the conversation off track. It becomes unclear what the subject of conversation is because, quite often, everyone talks about their own subject and not about the subject under discussion.

(3) In a dialogue participants strive for mutual understand-ing because what is looked for is an agreement, a consensus, new findings. However, according to Habermas, to reach this mutual understanding, the participants must show a real inter-est (predisposition) when they inter-establish a conversation through a dialogue.

In a debate participants seek to convince each other that they are right, constantly demanding speaking time. In other words, participants undermine each other’s standpoints and look upon each other’s speaking time as lost time because the interest in understanding one another is null.

(4) In a dialogue, there are neither winners nor losers.

Participants don’t just accept each other’s beliefs and persua-sions, but will explore these. Listening, probing and questioning the arguments, the ideas that characterize the dialogue, rather than imposing a proposal as in a debate. Following Socrates’

method, dialogue generates the best available atmosphere to per-suade and disper-suade and look for a mutual exchange of reasons in which participants gain a better understanding both of the prob-lem or subject under discussion and of themselves.

(5) Dialogue actively promotes tolerance towards what is dif-ferent as one of the main ways of showing respect to others.

Participants are attentive to each other inquiries and explana-tions because all voices have the same weight, all of them count.

Everybody involved has an opportunity to express and argue for their opinions. A fruitful dialogue consists of empathy and of a critical and reflexive attitude to self and to others making a rich understanding taking into account all different viewpoints.

Because of this, the interplay of partners in a dialogue has the potential to generate shared meaning through what Gadamer calls the “fusing horizons” (Gadamer, 1988).

However, debate stifles the willingness to listen to each other due to the attempts to defeat the other participant. The fruit of this circumstance is a constant interruption of participants’

contributions in a disrespectful manner of speaking. Debate promotes aggressiveness and high-handedness because all other viewpoints have to be overpowered.