Tolerance
So as it turns out, there is a crucial element to the idea of "Tolerance" that modern culture has failed to understand (or in some cases it has simply been ignored).
You see, there is a HUGE difference between being tolerant of a person and being tolerant of an idea. This means that I can disagree with your oppinion all I like, without disrespecting or degrading you as a person. Or look at it like this: If someone agrees with your stance on the war in Iraq, need you be tolerant of that person? Of course not. You don't tolerate people who agree with you, you're on the same side. So by its very definition you can only be tolerant of people you disagree with. This idea seems to be missing in our modern understanding of tolerance. If I want to engage in civil discourse with someone who has an opposing view to my own (let's say on abortion or Iraq) I can do so, all the while still being tolerant of the person himself or herself.
The problem today is that as soon as I open my mouth and say something like, "I don't believe abortion is morally right because..." I am immedately labeled as being intolerant (or perhaps some other ad hominem is thrown my way, but they all basically lead back to me being intolerant). Just because I disagree with your opinion, that doesn't mean I'm being intolerant of you as a person.
The sad truth is that this intolerance insult is really little more than a cover for moral cowerdice. People no longer wish to engage in any sort of conflict, even if it is the most civil of intelligent discourses, either because they are unable to defend their point of view or because they are simply unwilling. Thus we are left with a society where "progress" in the area of "tolerance" is ultimately inhibiting our progress everywhere else and leading us straight to moral relativism.
The bottom line is this: If we are to take the idea of "tolerance" to mean that we must be tolerant of all ideas, then no one is truly tolerant (especially the "enlightened" liberal, who hates everything that the Christian right stands for, and is thus intolerant of their ideas) and the idea of tolerance becomes self-defeating. So the next time someone calls you intolerant, ask them to explain their definition of tolerance and then point out the self-defeating nature of their own definition.
If you're just being a hateful jerk (or you're a card-carrying member of the KKK), then yeah, you're intolerant. :P
You see, there is a HUGE difference between being tolerant of a person and being tolerant of an idea. This means that I can disagree with your oppinion all I like, without disrespecting or degrading you as a person. Or look at it like this: If someone agrees with your stance on the war in Iraq, need you be tolerant of that person? Of course not. You don't tolerate people who agree with you, you're on the same side. So by its very definition you can only be tolerant of people you disagree with. This idea seems to be missing in our modern understanding of tolerance. If I want to engage in civil discourse with someone who has an opposing view to my own (let's say on abortion or Iraq) I can do so, all the while still being tolerant of the person himself or herself.
The problem today is that as soon as I open my mouth and say something like, "I don't believe abortion is morally right because..." I am immedately labeled as being intolerant (or perhaps some other ad hominem is thrown my way, but they all basically lead back to me being intolerant). Just because I disagree with your opinion, that doesn't mean I'm being intolerant of you as a person.
The sad truth is that this intolerance insult is really little more than a cover for moral cowerdice. People no longer wish to engage in any sort of conflict, even if it is the most civil of intelligent discourses, either because they are unable to defend their point of view or because they are simply unwilling. Thus we are left with a society where "progress" in the area of "tolerance" is ultimately inhibiting our progress everywhere else and leading us straight to moral relativism.
The bottom line is this: If we are to take the idea of "tolerance" to mean that we must be tolerant of all ideas, then no one is truly tolerant (especially the "enlightened" liberal, who hates everything that the Christian right stands for, and is thus intolerant of their ideas) and the idea of tolerance becomes self-defeating. So the next time someone calls you intolerant, ask them to explain their definition of tolerance and then point out the self-defeating nature of their own definition.
If you're just being a hateful jerk (or you're a card-carrying member of the KKK), then yeah, you're intolerant. :P
posted by David at
10:39 AM
1 Comments:
People need to realize they can disagree, discuss and even argue while still respecting each other. I know - - we are a family (especially the males) that love to "debate" MANY issues...and we're a happy family!! REALLLY!
By
Sandy, at January 31, 2006 8:01 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home