Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTolerance is not a moral absolute. It is a peace treaty.
Found on the Daily Kos, here:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/5/1617520/-Zunger-Tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept#comment_65035791
The content is originally from this article:
https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376#.oroy1ckzs
Tolerance is not a moral precept
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each others throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesnt directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your groups acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on peoples stated opposition to their neighbors lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether theyll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone elses religious laws on you.
This is a variation on the old saw that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. We often forget (or ignore) that no right is absolute, because one persons rights can conflict with anothers. This is why freedom of speech doesnt protect extortion, and the right to bear arms doesnt license armed robbery. Nor is this limited to rights involving the state; people can interfere with each others rights with no government involved, as when people use harassment to suppress other peoples speech. While both sides of that example say they are exercising their free speech, one of them is using their speech to prevent the others: these are not equivalent. The balance of rights has the structure of a peace treaty.
Unlike absolute moral precepts, treaties have remedies for breach. If one side has breached anothers rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant and their response is not an identical violation of the rules, even if it looks superficially similar to the original breach. Mommy, Timmy hit me back! holds no more ethical weight among adults than it does among children.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 673 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post