3 ms·
I think this is probably true for armed conflict, but for civil conflicts in liberal societies, I think it's fair to assume that over time things converge to a
by gfodor 6y ago
I think this is probably true for armed conflict, but for civil conflicts in liberal societies, I think it's fair to assume that over time things converge to a more moral and just society over time. (So, the "victors" can be presumed legitimately moral.) However, this has an assumption that a society is liberal, and provides the free exchange of ideas, which is something that seems to ebb-and-flow itself.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThe free exchange of ideas falls prey to the paradox of tolerance.
- gfodor 6y agoOnly if you don't understand the paradox.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoWould you mind explaining it then? I feel like this is a major problem in society today and I'd be edified by exposure to a solution.
- svrb 6y agoThe paradox of tolerance demonstrates a fatal flaw in the concept of "tolerance", not in the free exchange of ideas. I have become increasingly convinced that the concept of "tolerance" has been corrupted over time until it became susceptible to the paradox, and thus able to act as a strawman of (classical) liberal beliefs. You will find absolutely nothing in "equality before the law" which falls victim to the paradox.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThe paradox is that you can exchange ideas freely until someone uses your openness to new ideas to argue against the free exchange of ideas; whereas people who don’t believe in the free exchange of ideas will not allow you to advocate for the free exchange of ideas because they don’t believe in the free exchange if ideas and the free exchange of ideas is one of the ideas they prohibit.