-
In total there are 52 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 49 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17034
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3521 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: .
NiallYou think too damn much. Chris "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
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.
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
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
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.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.
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.
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17034
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3521 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
"...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.
Great point, Interbane.
- Doulos
-
Asleep in Reading Chair
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
- 12
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: -----
Believers in many religions would disagree with this though. If there is a creator 'God,' then there is an absolute measure greater than man.Chris OConnor wrote:Zach I don't think we can hold views to be subjective all the time.
But they are always subjective.
...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
-
Asleep in Reading Chair
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 11:27 pm
- 12
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
Niall001 wrote:Massimo Pigliucci's article, "On Tolerance vs. Respect.''
Good topic though Niall. May all nine of your hostages sing of your generousity.
- johnson1010
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
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."
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."
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
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.
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
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
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.johnson1010 wrote: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."
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
-
Tenured Professor
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
- 15
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 1280 times
- Been thanked: 1128 times
Re: Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect
In what sense absolute?Believers in many religions would disagree with this though. If there is a creator 'God,' then there is an absolute measure greater than man.
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.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
-Guillermo Del Torro
Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?
Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?
Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?