Tolerance or Truth?

[Psyduck]

I am not going after the bait in some other recent thread here... rather I will spend my energy thinking about the following... in the P&S rules I just read:

4. All beliefs will be treated with equal respect. Diversity of belief -- religious, spiritual, philosophical, political, artistic, and social -- is the lifeblood of P&S.

Tolerance or Truth: where does on draw the boundary? Which one is the highest good?

Should one respect the opinion of another person no matter what? What if the person has racist ideas, or is convinced that women/gays are inferior, or rejects some basic facts proven by science (i.e. gravity does not exist and I can jump from a building and fly)?

In the history of human culture not only did people do bad things (war, murder, etc.) they also had bad ideas (racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.). Previously accepted "bad ideas" were overcome by a revolt and this often resulted in a better situation. The most famous example is maybe the French Revolution which brought about democracy and individual freedom (revolting against the religious aristocracy). Even though this revolt was a violent process, eventually something more positive resulted from it.

As I see it, abusing/modifying the idea of Darwin: in the history of ideas there is also a "survival of the fittest" process, in which opposing ideas stand in conflict with each other and the "strongest idea" ultimately wins. This dialectical process actuallly is the core of the scientific inquiry. In science, new ideas emerge not because scientist-1 is not a nice guy and doesn't like the position of scientist-2. No, ultimately they are both looking for the same thing (i.e. truth) and rejecting/destroying the position of the other person is a necessary requirement for further progress. Mutatis mutandi, I think this scheme must be extended to the whole realm of human knowledge. However, today in our society, tolerance has gained on a lot of importance, "i.e. everybody has the right to have his own view." But is this always such a good thing? Should we accept, for example, the opinion of someone who claims that homeopathy heals a person? What if his patient truly believes this and no longer consults a proper doctor? And what if that person eventually becomes seriously sick? When do innocent ideas become dangerous? And when should dangerous ideas no longer be accepted? (e.g. racism is no longer acceptable today)

To which extent do we have the right to be intolerant and try to "destroy bad ideas"? Of course, no human person can decide for everybody else what is to be considered "bad" and "good." This would result in pure tyranny. On the other hand, conflicting ideas of people can be considered as part of a Darwinian process, in which the strongest idea eventually survives. Considered this way, as a struggle between opposing ideas, it is "legitimate" to be intolerant to the ideas of other people. This, of course, does not imply that one must be intolerant and be a total asshole.

To state the dilemma again: should we be tolerant to "every" idea/opinion in society because tolerance is more important than truth, or should we strive for truth, and is being intolerant sometimes necessary for society to progress?

 

[rickolasnice]

You are entitled to any opinion you want.

That doesn't mean I have to respect it

If a person was racist but never upset anyone by it.. then fair game. It doesn't mean i will respect their views or even them. If it causes offence.. I think it depends on the severity and what the view is in the first place. Making someone uncomfortable or feel threatened for being black, gay or whatever then that's not on.

You can't dictate peoples thoughts but you can stop that person using those beliefs to harm others.

To be honest I think you should be able to protest pretty much anything you want.. As long as individuals are not targeted. (For example, i think, i don't know, the KKK should be allowed to stage a rally and say what they want.. and any passers by or counter demo can voice their opinions.

I do believe some beliefs need fighting, as you probably know (racism, sexism, homophobia among the top) but they need fighting with equal opposition and education. I've had many people give a racist remark in front of me and it doesn't take long before they feel silly. Or, happened recently actually, a group of people i was on a course with started talking about "gays being disgusting" .. when logic doesn't work I simply say "I'm gay".. Soon sends em into "Nah you know i didn't i mean you're but sometimes".. (I'm not gay, for the record)

People can not offend if nobody takes offence

 

[Foreigner]

I would rather err on the side of tolerance because once we start tinkering with the notion that worldviews can have absolute truth, we give license to fascism to rise that oppresses all contradictory views.

 

[Psyduck]

I don't want to go down the (dangerous) road to say that there is only one Absolute truth. Every status quo can be criticized.

However, I am aware of the potential dangers, for example, when the status quo creates a power-structure and makes itself immune to critique.

 

[rickolasnice]

^ Talking about Islam?

 

[Psyduck]

I was not talking about the Islam (yet), but that would indeed be a good example. It is very difficult to criticize the status quo in theocratic Islamic states (both from the inside, as well from the outside).

Which leads to my main question (now on an international level): should the West (EU) be tolerant about the horrible things happening there (e.g. how women/gays are treated) or should we attack their ideas because we want to shape a better future?

The answer is paradoxical and reminds me of:

NSFW:

 

[Foreigner]

*shakes head*

This thread is not going to be about whether or not organized religion should exist. We're talking about whether or not the ideology that we should tolerate all viewpoints equally is feasible. Carry on.

 

[-=SS=-]

Tolerance.

Rather than try to force anyone towards a certain direction I think it is better to simply question and get people to realize for themselves. Once enough people reach a certain level of understanding through direct experience there is no need to force anything, the sheer volume of people now holding that level of understanding will naturally exclude those who can't hold that capacity of understanding.

Physically beating a child to get them to understand a point usually creates more problems than it solves. Patience and guidance tend towards far more efficient results. And besides, ideas (individually or on a larger societal scale) that are not facing towards the truth destroy themselves eventually anyway.. anything that is in contradiction with the natural order of things will eventually get swept away. It may take thousands of years to run its course, but in the end systemic problems always resolve themselves.

 

[ebola?]

Maybe I'm not thinking rigorously enough, but I'm not seeing the tension.

Should one respect the opinion of another person no matter what?

What is "respect of an opinion"? To me, that is respect of an individual's ability to form their own opinion. This doesn't entail agreement therewith or preclude vehement denouncement thereof. Also, if we hold respect for the opinions of every individual, doesn't this also entail respect for opinions about others' opinions, and thus respect of vocal criticism?

The one thing to be rejected is claims that particular individuals are incapable of forming their own opinions and therefore must discontinue trying to do so, in favor of capitulation to others' ideas instead.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Marcuse, Frankfurt School Marxist, weighed in on the matter in this

ebola

 

[Renz Envy]

I would rather err on the side of tolerance because once we start tinkering with the notion that worldviews can have absolute truth, we give license to fascism to rise that oppresses all contradictory views.

I agree with this. Even if there were a single truth, I don't believe it could stand alone forever.

 

[Psyduck]

I agree with this. Even if there were a single truth, I don't believe it could stand alone forever.

The use of the word "Truth" was not well-chosen. Maybe I could have better used "higher (degrees of) rationality." In this terminology, rationality is normative for society as a whole -- but, of course, can itself be criticized (by rational means).

Racism, sexism, etc. are "lower degrees of rationality" and should not be tolerated by society. The point of view of racists is not a "valid" or "legitimate" in the sense that the person is not capable of reaching higher levels of rationality (i.e. "people are equal no matter what the color of their skin is").

edit: I want emphasize one more time the paradoxical nature of my question. If one is intolerant to racists, is one actually any better than racists who are intolerant to other races? If no, does this entail that one should just be passive and allow their worldview?

 

[L2R]

for a few years now, i've been saying "it's better to get along than to be right". although i don't follow it all the time, it is a personal mantra. aside from the already noted dangers, if you simplify each and consider that you only live once (as far as we know), the satisfaction of truth pales in comparison to the contentment of peace and respect amongst others.

as a result i only tend to get my back up when someone acts in a divisive or antagonistic way. still, i can be, and have been, quite close friends with people who have worldviews which are utterly abhorrent to me (like overt racists).

 

[ebola?]

Can't one harmonize dedication to truth and peaceful coexistence? I'm resigned to others having views that differ from mine and enjoy discussing those differences, but this doesn't entail that I sacrifice the validity of my own opinions or claims that I make. Hell, it often leads me to learn via examination of gaps in my own logic.

ebola

 

[L2R]

not everyone has your special combination of mental brilliance and olive oil spaghetti arms transplant that cranium into the body of a t-rex and see how tolerant you are.

seriously, getting along is hard for lots of people. the pursuit of "truths" is one major excuse to persecute and wage war. it isn't as simple as

 

[rickolasnice]

Some things should be tolerated.. others shouldn't.

Some things such as religion passing laws against "gay propaganda".. arresting gay couples while applauding (well, atleast turning a blind eye) vigilante groups for attacking them is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. Men having the control they do over women in places like Saudi Arabia shouldn't be tolerated. Sentencing somebody to life in prison for growing some cannabis plants shouldn't be tolerated.

Thinking homosexuals are "wrong" is harmless in itself. Thinking Hitler should be idolised i could tolerate. Even someone calling a black man a nigger i could tolerate. Intimidating and attacking a black person because they are black, gay, whatever I couldn't.

I'm confused as to what you mean by truth?

 

[Psyduck]

Truth = rationality,

however, that does probably not clear up much things, but...

e.g. the abolishment of slavery, the creation of democracy, individual human rights,...

I don't consider these things as random decisions made in worldhistory, based on some (subjective, contingent) value-system... I consider these evolutions as the Universe growing to "higher degrees of rationality." In this sense these changes have some kind of "objectivity" (truth)... the overcoming of slavery is not a "convenient" change of scenario, but a REAL rational progress of humanity... in other words: "it is the RIGHT/CORRECT way to move forward" not an arbitrary change of situation.

 

[rickolasnice]

Then truth is obviously the higher good.

I don't believe there is a true right or true wrong outside of an evolved (by survival of the fittest) sense of morality.. which basically stems from mutual aid. The human race is not growing into a higher degree of rationality.. Capitalism and consumerism are considered good things.. ultimately these things will destroy the planet and completely mess up society. There will come a point where there are so many poor and hungry people that the average person will NEED to fight to survive. Not only are were populating at an unmanageable rate but we are cutting down rain forests, over fishing fish, and spilling billions of tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere..

The way we're moving is whatever way the powers that be pushes us.. and they're most definitely not right, correct, moral or true.

 

[Shrooms00087]

The highest good would be Truth. In terms of a society "tolerance" should never be a goal in my mind. Slavoj Zizek has a good saying, "Martin Luther King didn't want to be tolerated, he wanted equal rights". If the truth is a group or a person is just being tolerated instead of liberated then what good is tolerance?

 

[Foreigner]

I don't think true tolerance is rational. At the highest level it's rooted in compassion, which is unconditional. Compassion sees through circumstance and into the common humanity.

Secularism enforces tolerance through rationality, but it's ultimately compassion that nourishes the final benevolent outcome.

Since compassion and truth come from the same source, those able to exercise the most genuine compassion are likely to understand truth better than anyone else. I don't really believe pure rationalists can fully grasp truth as it pertains to human existence, because you can rationalize most actions, including the most heinous. Tyranny and oppression rationalize themselves all the time, but it's compassion which proves them wrong.