Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect

[Chris OConnor]

NiallYou think too damn much. Chris "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

[JATWLB]

I agree with all that you say except for one caviat. That is, to reject all aspects of something (like political views or religious views) as a whole is illogical and by that very definition is both intolerant and disrespectful.

Saying that "all of something" or "none of something" shows either extreme bias or ignorance. Therefore, on a personal level, when I see this occur, I dismiss the views of the speaker due to their naive stance.

[Interbane]

That is, to reject all aspects of something (like political views or religious views) as a whole is illogical and by that very definition is both intolerant and disrespectful.

What of the ideology that is intolerant, such as Islam? What you ask is that we tolerate a portion of this religious view? It may be the case that some portions are respectable and tolerable, but such a belief system does not come piece meal. If you're partially tolerant and express that tolerance, the extremists pick up on that and use it as ammunition for conversion of new fanatics.

So even in the name of epistemic fairness, can't we say that rejecting all of something is sometimes a good thing, at least as a means to an end? Nazism may have had some diamonds in the rot, but I'd rather extract those elements as independent of the ideology and condemn the entire system, so there's no mistake to the education of future generations.

I don't mind the disrespectful portion. I will not be respectful of a person who believes in a flat Earth, or a young Earth. Those very beliefs are intolerable, a step backwards for collective human progress. Such people should be ridiculed and mocked until they come to terms with reality. Perhaps electric shocks and drug therapy too.

[Chris OConnor]

"...but such a belief system does not come piece meal. If you're partially tolerant and express that tolerance, the extremists pick up on that and use it as ammunition for conversion of new fanatics."

Great point, Interbane.

[Doulos]

Zach I don't think we can hold views to be subjective all the time.
But they are always subjective.

Believers in many religions would disagree with this though. If there is a creator 'God,' then there is an absolute measure greater than man.

...this is merely my subjective view of Chris' subjective view though.


Merely because views are subjective does not mean that there are not more and less valid or supportable viewpoints though.

[Doulos]

Massimo Pigliucci's article, "On Tolerance vs. Respect.''

Good topic though Niall. May all nine of your hostages sing of your generousity.

[johnson1010]

I'm on board with Sam Harris on this.

Morality has to do with the experience of conscious things.

Two experiences may be of equal "goodness" or equal "badness" with no real way to say which is better. But we can definitely say the bad things are bad, and the good things are good.

One example he uses is that there is no perfect food. Lots of things are food and they can all sustain a body. But some things are very definitely poisonous and we needn't be confused about which is which.

the experience of consciousness is subjective to each person, but there are plenty of objective ways to measure that experience.

"Ignorance is not another form of being educated."

[JFRobot]

Tolerance is, in todays world, confused with acceptance, association, agreement, so on and so forth.

When you hate a food (that, for the sake of the scenario, you have to eat), you do not accept it. To accept it would be implying you do not hate or disagree with something. But merely are neutral on the matter or are for it.

Tolerance, on the other hand, means that you dislike, disagree with or, in extreme cases, hate the thing of question but, instead of showing your disagreement, you keep your trap shut and take no action to make your opinion heard.

Were there more people like this, the world would be quiet...but it would never be peaceful as, after all, one can only tolerate something to a certain degree.

[DWill]

I'm on board with Sam Harris on this.

Morality has to do with the experience of conscious things.

Two experiences may be of equal "goodness" or equal "badness" with no real way to say which is better. But we can definitely say the bad things are bad, and the good things are good.

One example he uses is that there is no perfect food. Lots of things are food and they can all sustain a body. But some things are very definitely poisonous and we needn't be confused about which is which.

the experience of consciousness is subjective to each person, but there are plenty of objective ways to measure that experience.

"Ignorance is not another form of being educated."

I'd love to see a discussion of this topic between Harris and Jonathan Haidt. I'd expect the main difference to be that Harris believes essentially in defining morality so that one dimension is central, that of care/harm. What is relevant for Harris is that conscious beings don't experience harm and so have greater flourishing. What flourishing consists of, however, can be viewed in more than one way, something Harris says he understands but is pretty vague about. Haidt would say no, when you restrict morality to one dimension, you have nowhere to put several other aspects that cultural groups would insist are central to questions of morality. These are expressed by the pairs Sanctity/degradation, Fairness/cheating, Liberty/oppression, Loyalty/subversion, and Authority/subversion. A society that failed to institute values according to these imperatives might not be flourishing at all, in the view of that society.

Harris believes that because of our liberal, relativistic philosophy, we have become morally hamstrung, feeling ourselves unable to say that certain practices that cause pain are not "objectively" wrong but are simply reflections of the values of a culture. He's right, especially when the practices are based in religion. But we can be morally hamstrung as well if we refuse to say that morality operates from bases besides care/harm, and to expand into these others I'm afraid we need to jettison a cherished libertarian idea that we should not be censured for doing whatever we want as long as it is voluntary, as Harris said in the video. Sometimes, "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is added onto this, but that only muddies the waters by making us then decide what harm consists of. Morality, I believe, must involve making claims about some of the other foundations, and for most of the world (excluding liberal democratic segments) it does. To do this, we have to have opinions about the voluntary actions of others, or, if we won't, at least admit that such broader-based morality can be genuine.

It's a good video that summarizes Harris's The Moral Landscape. Thanks for posting it.

[johnson1010]

Believers in many religions would disagree with this though. If there is a creator 'God,' then there is an absolute measure greater than man.

In what sense absolute?

If god were a reality, should we be comforted that whatever it fancies is The Right Thing?

How is this god absolute when it says "No killing" then commands the slaughter of whole populations, down to their animals?

Absolute measure?

That isn't the word i would use.
Inconsistant, fickle, childish, depraved, petty... those fit better.

and besides, this is basically a "might makes right" argument. Just because god would have the power to inflict his will on us doesn't mean he's right, or that our opinions on how we should be left to live in peace and cooperation is nothing compared to his opinion that we should live our lives in abject prostration, and murder those who don't oblige.