Jan. 2004 - Tolerance vs. Respect

[Niall001]

The following thread is to discuss Massimo Pigliucci's Rationally Speaking article entitled, On Tolerance vs. Respect.''What about tolerance? Are there ideas and customes that should not be tolerated, even by members of a liberal society? Yes, plenty. The practice, common in some societies, of operating on a young girl's clitoris so that she will not feel sexual pleasure as an adult is barbaric, and cannot and should not be defended as simply another "cultural custom." It is wrong for the simple reason that it hurts an innocent human being who is in no position to understand or oppose what is being done to her. There are many more obvious instances of things we shouln't tolerate, of course (say, terrorism), but I think that examples like cliterectomy bring the limits of the concept into sharper focus, because not everybody in our society agrees that such a practice is barbarian. Heck, many of my liberal friends even recoil from the use of the term "barbarian" when referring to another society. Sorry, folks, but I think that Iran is currently stuck in the late Middle Ages, and I make no apologies for stating it -- which I don't mean as a compliment.''What I'm wondering is why Massimo thinks that the late Middle Ages were bad? It may be his opinion that the Middle Ages were bad, it may be that I agree, but that does not make that does not mean that the middle ages were bad.By comparing modern Iran to Europe of the middle ages, Massimo seems to suggest that progress exists, that we are moving toward some sort of eutopia.I think that Massimo is making a mistake. The people who practice cliterectomy hold different values to him. Their belief systems are completely different. While the practice may appear savage to him when he studies it, this is because he uses his own values to evaluate the procedure. THier values and beliefs might seem unjustifiable to him, but Massimo's values and beliefs would seem equally unjustifiable to others.Perhaps I am mistaken, but throughout the article, it becomes evident that Massimo has drawn an line in the sand, but he never informs where that line is. He seems to believe that if the majority of his readers agree that the practice of cliterectomy is bad, then he does not need to justify that belief. Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 2/17/04 1:30 pm

[ZachSylvanus]

I don't think we can hold views to be subjective all the time. Regardless of whether they think it's okay, cliterectomy is often harmful to the woman, and with the surgical techniques used, can often be fatal. If a group of people (say the Aztecs) believe that it's okay to sacrifice a slave every day to the gods, and remove one heart a day, can't we objectively agree that this is a bad thing? I don't need to be part of their culture to understand it; some things are universally (objectively) wrong. Even if we're only using a social contract to define objectivity and subjectivity, the point holds.

[Niall001]

And if a cliterectomy is carried out in an environment which is safe? What if somebody wanted to sacrafice themselves to a god?Pray tell, what acts are universally wrong and why?

[EvilTeuf]

Objective moralists are really on a hiding to nothing.And on circumcision: the male variety is pretty harmful as well, and carries no medical benefits over remaining unmutilated.

[ZachSylvanus]

Depends if they're well informed, personal decisions, Niall.Also, Teuf, I'm glad you elucidate your point so clearly.

[EvilTeuf]

Hmmm. I don't know you enough to know if you're practising the high art of sarcasm here...

[Chris OConnor]

ZachI don't think we can hold views to be subjective all the time.But they are always subjective. You think one thing and another person thinks another. You cannot prove someone to be wrong that holds a different opinion. You can only demonstrate that everyone else thinks he/she is an ass. Each view is subjective. All opinions are subjective. If we were talking about the laws of physics we would move into the arena of the objective, but we're not.All opinions are always subjective. Some subjective opinions precisely describe objective reality, but the opinion is still subjective. Some redhead women, in my opinion, are sexy as hell. Again...in my opinion. It is a subjective opinion...not everyone agrees and they don't have to agree.It is my opinion that a helium atom has two protons and two electrons. Is this subjective? It happens to be my subjective opinion, which fortunately correlates to the objective reality that a helium atom does indeed have two protons and two electrons. The structure of a helium atom is objective. My opinion of the structure of a helium atom is subjective. The goal of science and anyone that strives to be rational is to mitigate the gap between their subjective opinions of reality and the actual nature of objective reality. Scary thing is sometimes what we considered to be an objective aspect of reality can prove to not hold true in all situations.There are things for which there is not an objective element. Right and wrong cannot be objective without there being something external to the individual that demonstrates them to be right or wrong. Two people on opposite sides of the planet will agree on the structure of a helium atom, but what about what constitutes a beautiful woman? ...what about whether or not it is ok to beat your children? ...what about what is simply right or wrong?You and I don't want to live in a society where women undergo procedures such as the cliteroctomy, or in a society where humans are enslaved or sacrificed to Gods. So for us...these things are wrong. When the us is large enough we make the mistaken assumption that we're looking at something that is blatantly obviously objective.If every single person on this planet believes that killing is wrong...it is still a subjective opinion. Unless you can show me that killing is wrong independent of ones opinions, then you cannot claim it is objective. A social group could always emerge one day claiming that killing is not only right, but it is great fun for the whole family. But then an alien race could land and screw up our theory too. You will never have a social group come forward and be able to argue successfully that 2 + 2 = Pacific Ocean. Or at least I hope not. This is my subjective opinion. Notice that I am not saying that, as a society, we should not make decisions about what constitutes right and wrong, and punish and reward accordingly. All social groups that wish to maximize group cohesion and harmony must come up with social mores and enforce laws and rules. But...these human concepts only exist out of necessity and, should our species suddenly vanish, so would right and wrong. Oh, other intelligent social animals would still retain their versions of right and wrong, but all human perceptions of right and wrong would suddenly be gone. The structure of a helium atom will not change one iota if all sentience ceased to exist.The concepts of right and wrong are tools we use to get along with each other. If you were born on an island and had absolutely no contact with other humans ever, nor contact with other animals...you would not even understand the concept of right or wrong. It would serve no purpose.Chris "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

[Chris OConnor]

NiallYou're hitting on a fascinating subject. Who is to say that an act is universally right or wrong? Personally, I don't feel comfortable giving an answer with any degree of certainty. To me we have a gray area here. And damn I hate not being able to articulate a clear rebuttal.In debates I'll usually go the route of asserting that "right" and "wrong" are culturally relative. And I think I can make a decent argument to support this notion. For instance, the Yanomamo people think it is "right" to venture over to another social group and violently attack and kill the men and children. I'm not talking a coordinated response to a past transgression of the other party. This is out of the blue. They kill the males and drag the women off and rape them, impregnate them, and absorb them into their social group. Is this wrong? Not to the Yanomamo, or they probably wouldn't do it. But to the rest of the world it is barbaric. So who is right? I naturally assume the rest of the world must be right, but I cannot explain why with any real comfort. I just so happen to be a part of the "rest of the world," and therefore, know it to be wrong.What makes something intrinsically right or wrong? Hurt someone and you have done wrong. But why? Who says? Why is it wrong when one life form hurts another? Is the cheetah wrong for ripping apart the gazelle? Of course not....the cheetah must kill the gazelle or it will die itself. So incidences of life and death change the picture. But what about when a group of adolescent chimpanzees murder the alpha male of a rival group? Is this wrong? Who says? Massimo says...Quote:What about tolerance? Are there ideas and customes that should not be tolerated, even by members of a liberal society? Yes, plenty. The practice, common in some societies, of operating on a young girl's clitoris so that she will not feel sexual pleasure as an adult is barbaric, and cannot and should not be defended as simply another "cultural custom." It is wrong for the simple reason that it hurts an innocent human being who is in no position to understand or oppose what is being done to her.While I personally agree that this act is horrifically barbaric...Massimo needs to take this a step further. To say this act, "cannot and should not be defended," is but an opinion as it stands. Massimo doesn't explain why these people should not be allowed to continue with their customs. Who says its barbaric? We do. They don't.Please understand that I am not defending this disgusting practice. It revolts me and I want it to end. I think it's the product of extreme ignorance. But we should be clear that the act is not intrinsically wrong. "It is wrong to harm another" is not an axiom, but it is a social norm at this stage in civilized social groups. Why is it wrong? For one reason only...collectively, our social group has deemed it wrong to harm another. Each member of a social group is susceptible to harm, so they come to the agreement that harming another is bad. The only way for right and wrong to exist outside of the human mind is if an outside or external force created the rules. And I think we're all on the same page with feeling that the belief in a God is rather silly. So right and wrong are our little ways of maximizing group cohesion and stability, and increasing the probability that we as individuals with have the opportunity to exist within the society free of attack and harm from within or without the social group. Saying, "clitorectomies are wrong" is a way of saying, "I don't want anyone performing a cliteroctomy on me, so I therefore assert it to be wrong.Chris "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

[Chris OConnor]

NialQuote:What I'm wondering is why Massimo thinks that the late Middle Ages were bad? It may be his opinion that the Middle Ages were bad, it may be that I agree, but that does not make that does not mean that the middle ages were bad. By comparing modern Iran to Europe of the middle ages, Massimo seems to suggest that progress exists, that we are moving toward some sort of eutopia.I think the comparison is not only valid, but should be illuminated more in politics and academia. We should learn from history. Then again everyone is so wrapped up with being politically correct that labeling anything negatively can come back to haunt you.The entire Middle Ages were also referred to as the Dark Ages. To many scholars this was a time of barbarism and intellectual darkness. Who are we to call another time or culture barbaric or intellectually bankrupt? Well, if we don't take some liberties in speach we won't even be able to communicate. Do we remain silent about Hitler's atrocities so as not to be labeled as opinionated or biased? I mean...who gets to determine what is good and what is evil?Massimo is just speaking his mind. I've heard him debate and I have a feeling he is aware of the semantics games that his article could inspire. He cannot qualify every single sentence so that there are no loose ends. Most people consider the Middle Ages as rather primitive and barbaric. Yes, they are passing judgement. Yes, they are comparing one culture to another.Chris "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them"

[Niall001]

The problem as I see it, is that if we were to accept that certain practices are wrong then wouldn't we be obliged to stop them? And if we admit that our beliefs have no concrete basis, then surely we have no way to reason with those who carry out the practices that we consider barbaric? Does that mean that we are obliged to enforce our beliefs upon those who do not share them, by any means neccessary?Wouldn't that put us in the same bus as Al-Queda? Wouldn't that mean that Bush's stance on Gay marriage is justified? Hmmm, it would seem that I have nothing but questions.