4 ms·

>What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), i

>What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs threaten society. So, to paraphrase, you have moral principles only as long as it's safe to do so and then are willing to stoop as low as you need to when it's not. Well, let me tell you, sir, that that is no part of any liberal philosophy that I subscribe to, nor is it part of the philosophy of anyone I respect.

tptacek 10y ago
I think you think this was a snappy response, but I'm simply paraphrasing John Rawls. If you prefer Karl Popper, you might look up "the paradox of intolerance". You could also take it back to John Stuart Mill, if you'd like.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
  So? Then they are wrong as well then, at least in that particular, their eminence notwithstanding. Appealing to authority makes your position no more tenable. Principles that are abandoned when under duress are no principles at all.
  - chipotle_coyote 10y ago
    I'm seeing variants of this thrown around a lot here, but I don't see people engaging with tptacek's point, at least to my reading of it. Let me turn this around. When corporations choose to get actively political, like Chick-Fil-A's support of anti-gay groups and Ben & Jerry's support of Black Lives Matter, should we not take that into account when we decide whether to do business with them? I don't think you'd make that argument, because really, it's not a very sound one. It's not a very sound one to say that we are compromising our principles if we share our stance on those corporations with others and try to get them to come around to our point of view, either, is it? So why does it suddenly become sound in this case?
    - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
      "try to get them to come around to our point of view" sounds genteel but rather understates the ferocity of the persuasion, don't you think? In any case, the Wikipedia article on shunning sums it up nicely: Some aspects of shunning may also be seen as being at odds with civil rights or human rights, especially those behaviours that coerce and attack. When a group seeks to have an effect through such practices outside its own membership, for instance when a group seeks to cause financial harm through isolation and disassociation, they can come at odds with their surrounding civil society, if such a society enshrines rights such as freedom of association, conscience, or belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning#Civil_rights_implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning#Civil_rights_implicat...
    - inimino 10y ago
      Personal relationships, including business relationships, are governed by different principles than what brand of ice cream you buy.
- abecedarius 10y ago
  OK, Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2: > But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in or opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. > [some pages later:] For a long time past, the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma. It is that stigma which is really effective, and so effective is it that the profession of opinions which are under the ban of society is much less common in England, than is, in many other countries, the avowal of those which incur risk of judicial punishment. My understanding of Mill is quite against this claim, and especially your claim upthread 'There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions".' He was arguing directly this idea that it's enough for free speech that the state not suppress it.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    There's no philosopher you can't enlist in the support of any view if you quote them out of context (also: you could have done far better in finding a quote to deploy here; try searching On Liberty for the word "opinion"). The part you haven't come to yet is the Harm Principle.
    - striking 10y ago
      > The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Okay. So if we're preventing harm, then, what is the possible harm here? Do you think intolerant beliefs threaten society? I'm of the opinion that beliefs mean nothing until acted upon, that only intolerant actions threaten society. Or to rephrase it as one of the core tenets of Silicon Valley, "Having a great idea is not enough. It is the manner in which ideas are executed that counts."[1] 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318849, linking to https://archive.is/U6C4l#selection-2043.104-2043.196 https://archive.is/U6C4l#selection-2043.104-2043.196

tptacek 10y ago

I think you think this was a snappy response, but I'm simply paraphrasing John Rawls. If you prefer Karl Popper, you might look up "the paradox of intolerance". You could also take it back to John Stuart Mill, if you'd like.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
So? Then they are wrong as well then, at least in that particular, their eminence notwithstanding. Appealing to authority makes your position no more tenable. Principles that are abandoned when under duress are no principles at all.
- chipotle_coyote 10y ago
  I'm seeing variants of this thrown around a lot here, but I don't see people engaging with tptacek's point, at least to my reading of it. Let me turn this around. When corporations choose to get actively political, like Chick-Fil-A's support of anti-gay groups and Ben & Jerry's support of Black Lives Matter, should we not take that into account when we decide whether to do business with them? I don't think you'd make that argument, because really, it's not a very sound one. It's not a very sound one to say that we are compromising our principles if we share our stance on those corporations with others and try to get them to come around to our point of view, either, is it? So why does it suddenly become sound in this case?
  - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
    "try to get them to come around to our point of view" sounds genteel but rather understates the ferocity of the persuasion, don't you think? In any case, the Wikipedia article on shunning sums it up nicely: Some aspects of shunning may also be seen as being at odds with civil rights or human rights, especially those behaviours that coerce and attack. When a group seeks to have an effect through such practices outside its own membership, for instance when a group seeks to cause financial harm through isolation and disassociation, they can come at odds with their surrounding civil society, if such a society enshrines rights such as freedom of association, conscience, or belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning#Civil_rights_implications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning#Civil_rights_implicat...
  - inimino 10y ago
    Personal relationships, including business relationships, are governed by different principles than what brand of ice cream you buy.
abecedarius 10y ago
OK, Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2: > But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in or opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. > [some pages later:] For a long time past, the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma. It is that stigma which is really effective, and so effective is it that the profession of opinions which are under the ban of society is much less common in England, than is, in many other countries, the avowal of those which incur risk of judicial punishment. My understanding of Mill is quite against this claim, and especially your claim upthread 'There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions".' He was arguing directly this idea that it's enough for free speech that the state not suppress it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  There's no philosopher you can't enlist in the support of any view if you quote them out of context (also: you could have done far better in finding a quote to deploy here; try searching On Liberty for the word "opinion"). The part you haven't come to yet is the Harm Principle.
  - striking 10y ago
    > The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Okay. So if we're preventing harm, then, what is the possible harm here? Do you think intolerant beliefs threaten society? I'm of the opinion that beliefs mean nothing until acted upon, that only intolerant actions threaten society. Or to rephrase it as one of the core tenets of Silicon Valley, "Having a great idea is not enough. It is the manner in which ideas are executed that counts."[1] 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2318849, linking to https://archive.is/U6C4l#selection-2043.104-2043.196 https://archive.is/U6C4l#selection-2043.104-2043.196