I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Ethical dilemma of the day - volume 1
Sex God
Surely if someone was totally tolerant they'd have to apply it unequivocally? Otherwise they'd be selectively tolerant, which means they'd be intolerant to some things and couldn't then profess to be truly, totally tolerant, loosing their moral high-ground and any weight to their statements?
As I can't think of anyone who's ever been completely tolerant I guess it comes down to where you want to draw the line how your question's answered.
Think I need to go lie down now.
As I can't think of anyone who's ever been completely tolerant I guess it comes down to where you want to draw the line how your question's answered.
Think I need to go lie down now.
Quote by Kaznkev
It depends how you define intolerant,should we tolerate attitudes that harm others or are beyond our moral boundaries,no.
Should we allow free speech,in the belief that censorship is wrong allowing free speech also means we have the right to call up people on there mistaken beliefs,attempt to educate them and point out the fallacies in there arguments.
In other words if you do not agree with someone, then you try and teach them the error of their ways? According too who exactly?
That implies that what you believe is right and anyone that does not agree is therefore by definition, mistaken.
Maybe I have that wrong, it is late and am tired, but knowing you as I do on here.
Or maybe I am wrong and you can kindly educate me on my mistakes.
Sex God
Rather depends if one is tolerant by nature or because of belief...
If tolerant by nature it's given that you would tolerate anything (up to a point no-one is a saint after all)
If however like me you believe that tolerance is the best policy but you are by nature impatient and often intolerant the act is often more difficult than the choice....I try but I do often find others intolerance difficult to accept....but as I say I try
P.S. And also like flower said somewhere up there ^^^
If tolerant by nature it's given that you would tolerate anything (up to a point no-one is a saint after all)
If however like me you believe that tolerance is the best policy but you are by nature impatient and often intolerant the act is often more difficult than the choice....I try but I do often find others intolerance difficult to accept....but as I say I try
P.S. And also like flower said somewhere up there ^^^
Sex God
"All it takes for evil to reign is for good men to do nothing."
If we tolerate intolerance in others are we not opening the door to evil?
I'm more for cracking down on the small stuff (bad manners, petty crime, poor driving) and when people don't get away with that, they won't move up (as often) to the big stuff.
If we tolerate intolerance in others are we not opening the door to evil?
I'm more for cracking down on the small stuff (bad manners, petty crime, poor driving) and when people don't get away with that, they won't move up (as often) to the big stuff.
Quote by Kaznkev
In the book I was reading, although the question is a paradox, the answer to the question is no.
The argument is that tolerating intolerant views would lead to the eventual death of tolerance.
Thanks for your thoughts
which book?
and erm no, no philosophical debate worth it salt has an answer,read more, but post again it was an interesting thread
It was 'the meaning of things' by A.C. Grayling
Sex God
Quote by jdwxxx
I was reading an interesting argument about this and thought I'd see what other people think...
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?
Quote by jdwxxx
In the book I was reading, although the question is a paradox, the answer to the question is no.
The argument is that tolerating intolerant views would lead to the eventual death of tolerance.
Thanks for your thoughts
Ha haaaa! But the corollary of that argument seems to suggest that were the tolerant to stop tolerating the intolerant, then that by itself would lead to a general rise in intolerance, thereby possibly hastening the aforementioned death of tolerance, albeit from a contrary position?
Or something? :? 
i.e. In a just society the intolerant must be tolerated, because were the tolerant to stop tolerating the intolerant, then the tolerant could no longer be said to be tolerant, thereby rendering the just and tolerant society both unjust, and intolerant . . . . Q.E.D. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . Fuck it, I've completely lost me thread now . . . . . In my defence, I'm still trying to get to grips with squirrels going round trees that fall in woods out of earshot? :?
N x x x ;)
p.s. ;) s @ Kaz
Should we tolerate the intolerant?
Surely tolerance is not a permanent state but one of tentative judgement awaiting action. We tolerate certain people or activities pending our observation to see if they they turn out good or redeem themselves in some way. If they don't we then no longer tolerate them or the activity: we condemn it and/or apply some sanction to stop the behaviour.
Tolerance is about having the grace and kindness to give someone or something a chance. It is not about having to endure unacceptable behaviour or activities.
This is an interesting thread, and made me think.
Surely tolerance is not a permanent state but one of tentative judgement awaiting action. We tolerate certain people or activities pending our observation to see if they they turn out good or redeem themselves in some way. If they don't we then no longer tolerate them or the activity: we condemn it and/or apply some sanction to stop the behaviour.
Tolerance is about having the grace and kindness to give someone or something a chance. It is not about having to endure unacceptable behaviour or activities.
This is an interesting thread, and made me think.
I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.
when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.
when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp
Quote by Kaznkev
For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance
Interesting.
Leaving "Gor" aside for a moment:
Morals, Ethics and Tolerance. Do not each feed into and substantiate the other? Would not a certain Moral standpoint be the basis on which a Tolerant view is founded?
And what is the diference between Morals, and Ethics?
(Yes, I know it was I who brought Ethics in here, and I appologise, maybe thats another thread/debate).
Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm certainly not tying to argue a point or point-score in the least. This whole Tolerance Malarky seems rather a can or worms.... can there be a hard and fast point, a deciding factor in general behaviour that marks one as tolerant or intolerant? Or might Tloerance be measured on a "continuum", to be scaled and measured, one against the other with the potential for 'trade-off' and 'agreement'?
Would indeed that ever be posible for one who is intolerant of another to come to terms?
Now then, "Gor", what's that then? I'm intrigued now.
lp
Quote by Kaznkev
I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.
when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp
the problem with allowing tolerance to be a moveable boundary is that we are then left with no solid foundation for what is use the benifit to society as a whole is,a i am sure you are aware,simply utilitarianism and 30s Germany shows us how the greater good can lead us down dark paths,
For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance
But the movability of boundaries is not mere utilitarianism; it's just a reflection of the messiness of real life. Your own example is a good one; it's not being fucked senseless you object to, but being fucked senseless by someone who subscribes to a particular set of ideas. That's a good example of messiness, that you don't object to the act per se, but to the act because of what it means to the other person.
Tolerance as a fixed set of rules is an artificial construct into which we try and fit the messiness of real life. As soon as life's messiness doesn't fit the construct it becomes a source of conflict.
The idea of the greatest benefit to the greatest number isn't mere utilitarianism; it's trying to flex artificial constructs to make them better fit the mess of real life. In the process it reduces conflicts. The German example isn't about utilitarianism; it's about the disastrous application of ideology to reality.
I think....
Quote by __random_orbit__
And what is the diference between Morals, and Ethics?
ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person's moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
Thats just copy pasta... my brain is to tired to think for myself!
Quote by jdwxxx
And what is the diference between Morals, and Ethics?
ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person's moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
Thats just copy pasta... my brain is to tired to think for myself!
makes sence to me, I have pasta tonight too.
lp
Quote by Kaznkev
I like what you said there Jimbo.
Toleration need not be a permanent state, if that which needs tolerence goes beyond acceptable boundaries surely?
Should not tolerance be applied where the benefits to the tolerated individual/group and the remainder of society (I'm using society as an example, but I guess indivual relationships could/should work in the same manner) maintain a level of parity?
I would suppose that an open dialogue would also be needed to help keep this co-existance.
when that goes, sharpen your implements I suppose.
lp
the problem with allowing tolerance to be a moveable boundary is that we are then left with no solid foundation for what is use the benifit to society as a whole is,a i am sure you are aware,simply utilitarianism and 30s Germany shows us how the greater good can lead us down dark paths,
For example, i am open to all kinks but will not tolerate Gor, i feel it is outside my beliefs as a woman and a feminist, i do not need to tolerate something that i believe is harmful because my morals overide my need for tolerance
There seems to be here the idea that "to be tolerant" is the way we should act towards each one another all the time. But I don't think this is so and I come back to my previous point about tolerance being a tentative state. All of us, living in what we are lucky enough to be a fairly free society, are just that, free to pursue our own life without sanction as long as we keep within legal and general social boundaries. To say that I "tolerate" you when you have a different lifestyle to me is just patronising: in the real sense of a condescending indulgence on my part to put up with you. But how can this be when you are free to do as you wish? What right do I have to be tolerant of something that is yours already?
Surely tolerance only comes into play when boundaries are crossed in an ambiguous way, a provisional state is required: tolerance comes into play as a personal restraint pending the final outcome of your activity. Sometimes it appears someone or thing may be wrong but it is the right thing after all, without tolerance we would have slammed down on it at the start and never discovered the good outcome.
Does this make sense?
(By the way, what is Gor - it's driving bonkers!)
