3 ms·
The page you link states later: > In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherw
by striking 9y ago
The page you link states later:
> In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
> In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".
> Thomas Jefferson addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilise the country and its unity, saying, "...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
I believe we should tolerate the intolerant, for we may get them to change their minds. If we push them away, they won't get any closer to tolerance.
- dnsco 9y agoI agree that forgiveness is powerful. I also linked to that page because it shows a balanced view intentionally. It is easier for one to be forgiving when the problem is abstract and one's life is not directly threatened by the intolerance (please forgive the unwieldy "one"'s, I don't want to make any assumptions about "you"). I have a lot of respect for people who are able to hold forgiveness in their hearts, I also understand the value of the self preservation in drawing a firm boundary in saying "I will not be attacked". It's complicated.
- striking 9y agoOne's life is not directly threatened by intolerance when it comes strictly to speech. It is only action taken upon that speech (or imminent action caused by it) that threatens lives. And preventing the restriction of ideas such that "augmenting intelligence" or "radical life extension" are not suddenly unspeakable is very much unlike being intolerant of others anyway. Self-preservation is important, but it's also important for people to avoid being drunk on their own self-righteousness.
- dnsco 9y agoAnil's argument was that tolerating hatred of groups emboldens those who would be violent against those groups. In that, I agree violent speech threatens the lives of those who it is is violent against. There also degrees to this. There are certainly instances of people being drunk on their own self righteousness. - If I were a non-christian and you were to wish me "Merry Christmas", if I took the interpretation that you were threatening my life that would be unreasonable. - If you were to announce "I'm not killing anybody, but I pray that all the gays are killed" I think my understanding of that as endangering my life (as a gay person) is totally reasonable. This is a nuanced conversation, it helps to remember that different people have different things at stake, and it's difficult to say things that apply to every level.
- QAPereo 9y agoOrganized violence begins with the organization, and why most countries in the modern world have some provision to prevent inciting violence, riot, etc.