Author Topic: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?  (Read 898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DG

  • The Prophet
  • Global Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2017, 11:47:16 PM »
Alright, explain to me how there isn't a big difference between "we want equal rights" and "all of you people are inferior and should be deported/killed."

I eagerly await with baited breath.

There isn't a big difference in terms of what should be allowed, up until they make directed threats or calls to illegal actions. Which I could see becoming a factor, I haven't been to many KKK rallies so I don't know their exact behavior. But that's also why you announce such protests, so that it can be assessed what precautions are necessary. And one solution can be that they have to hold it somewhere else.

What do you think of Neo-Nazis wanting to march in Jewish neighborhoods with a number of  holocaust survivors living in those neighborhoods? I call that terrorist activities.

I would call banning such a march "intolerant". Whether or not it SHOULD be tolerated is a separate issue. That said, I haven't seen anyone suggesting that there are some things that should not be tolerated.

The question should be raised where that line should be drawn - and not in a case by case (class by class) basis because that invites bias. Is it "I think X is bad" should be allowed to be said without criminal sanction? What about "I think X is incompatible with a good and decent society"? "Kill X's" seems to be comfortably across the line of inciting violence and, as such, a thing that should not be permitted. 

I think that the prohibition needs to be internally consistent where "X" can be replaced with any person or class of persons, and the suggestion that certain classes or persons are excluded creates a special or privileged group.
"If you don't like the theory of evolution you should probably skip the practical".


Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2017, 08:33:26 PM »
You just restated the premise, though. I'm asking you to justify there not being a big difference between allowing people to protest in favor of equal civil rights and people marching in favor of genocide/deportation/racial segregation. I'm aware of what the law is, I'm asking for a moral justification of that law.

I’m not arguing that the law as is is perfect. My position is that this should be a matter of law. And if the law isn’t good enough, then the law is where attention should be directed, with the aim of improving the law. Vigilantism isn't any sort of solution, it’s a statement that society isn’t functioning.

But if society is one where people with wildly different stances can share them without involving violence and forceful obstruction, then I think that's a healthy society. Ideally people who call for making changes away from such a society would just be ignored.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10259
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2017, 06:20:57 AM »
If society isnt functioning then I think its worth stating.

There have been cases where vigilante and even terrorist actions have been the only thing to push reform because those in a position to make changes were unaffected by or benifitted from the status quo.
The only other option is for oppressed people to eat shit because polite society thinks acting outside established rules is unseemly.
Most vigilante action should not come without a cost though in my opinion. So I think that certain acts are both morally ok but should be punished under the law.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15611
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2017, 06:36:00 AM »
If society isnt functioning then I think its worth stating.

There have been cases where vigilante and even terrorist actions have been the only thing to push reform because those in a position to make changes were unaffected by or benifitted from the status quo.
The only other option is for oppressed people to eat shit because polite society thinks acting outside established rules is unseemly.
Most vigilante action should not come without a cost though in my opinion. So I think that certain acts are both morally ok but should be punished under the law.

Confused.  Aren't you also opposed to private gun ownership?  How does that square with seeing violent revolution as the last means of resistance for the oppressed?
To err is human.  To syntax error is System.NullReferenceException

Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2017, 06:45:27 AM »
I'm supportive of civil disobedience. Protesting laws you disagree with and accepting what follows as part of the statement. And to put pressure on the authorities if they're having to enforce something the public disagrees with.

Offline Beleth

  • Administrator Emeritus
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7781
Re: Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty?
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2017, 03:58:06 PM »
I'm asking you to justify there not being a big difference between allowing people to protest in favor of equal civil rights and people marching in favor of genocide/deportation/racial segregation. I'm aware of what the law is, I'm asking for a moral justification of that law.

Okay, let's rate them on Haidt's six moral foundations, then.

Foundation  Civil Rights ProtestSegregation March
CareNo short-term increase in care.
Potential to harm the immediate environment with litter.
Potential to change long-term awareness about helping the less fortunate.
No short-term increase in care.
Potential for violence to break out.
Potential for short-term psychological harm to nearby people on the other side of the issue.

Fairness

Increased mercy.

If one side can do it, so can the other side.

Loyalty

Potential decrease in racial or cultural loyalty.

Demonstration of racial loyalty, with potential increase.

Authority

Plea to authority to change things.
Potential increase in authority manipulation.

No plea to authority.

Purity*

Furtherance of the belief that fairness is important.

Furtherance of the belief that loyalty is important.

Liberty

Restrictions placed on who can use a public space until the protest is over. Could be indefinite.

Marches are typically short and put less restrictions on public space.

* - "Purity" here is a semi-misnomer. It doesn't mean ethnic or racial purity; it means more "sanctity" or "axiomaticness" of some beliefs. Are some morals so basic as to be unquestionable? Most people say that there are, but not everyone agrees on what they are.

Now. In terms of the Care and Fairness foundations, there's no question; the civil rights protest is way more moral than the segregationist march. In terms of Loyalty, Authority, and Liberty, though, a shorter, less environmentally-impacting march has the upper hand in terms of morals. Purity is a push - it mainly matters whether the individual who is judging values Fairness (in its Mercy form, as opposed to its Justice form) over Loyalty, or vice versa.
I expect to pass through this world but once;
any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now;
let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
-- Stephan Grellet

 

personate-rain
personate-rain