Now I will look at tolerance the same way. Again, it’s impossible to see into the mind,
so the only evidence we have of another’s tolerance is observed behaviors that
fit a clear definition. Tolerance is
usually defined as a willingness to tolerate opinions or behaviors one does not
necessarily agree with.
Ideally, everyone would be tolerant of any opinion or action
that does not cause a direct threat to one’s personal safety and
wellbeing. Let speakers speak on any
subject to anyone interested in listening.
Let demonstrators demonstrate peacefully without disrupting the lives of
others. Let people marry anyone they
want to. Let people take the drugs to
cure disease or just to feel better, e.g. pain relievers, caffeine, heroin.
The only exception should be for direct responsibility: parents for children, teachers for students, military
leaders for their troops, etc. But this
gets tricky in a couple of ways. In a
society where everyone’s medical costs become everyone else’s responsibility
because of insurance, perhaps your health habits should be everyone else’s business. But in this area we tend to pick and
choose. Smokers are shunned, but to
scorn or shame the overweight is seen as rude and insensitive. Alcohol is acceptable in moderation, but
recreational drugs are illegal.
Also, for Christians, Jews and even Muslims there is that
pesky chapter in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel where the Lord orders
everyone to step in to keep your neighbor from sinning or you will suffer the
same punishment. It concludes in Chapter 3, verse 21: “But if you do warn the
righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because
they took warning, and you will have saved yourself.” Based on that premise, some opposed to
same-sex marriage, for example, are not haters at all. They genuinely care about the salvation of
others and themselves. (I warned it
would get tricky.)
It seems tolerance must be narrowed down to make any sense. A reasonable starting place is the current
commotion over freedom of speech where college students and others on both political extremes heckle, shout down and even riot to keep speakers from delivering
their message. It’s a safe bet that
these people have not been inspired by reading Ezekiel nor are they doing it
out of concern about their health insurance premiums. Instead they seem to feel that allowing
contrary opinions is immoral, dangerous, or offensive. They imply by their actions that everyone
else is too stupid or ignorant to resist the lure of a faulty or insidious
argument, so they must step in to silence the messenger. Apparently, the alternative of answering
ideas with ideas is passé. The default
becomes shouting accusations of being evil – either fascist or communist. If anyone needs an example of a critical
thinking disaster, this is it.
A more passive way to shut people up is to claim their
opinions are offensive. It’s more
acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils
down to the same thing.
If we can’t even agree on something as basic as freedom of
speech, that tolerance we all seem to cherish ends up in practice being
tolerance only for what we deem appropriate.
We have little tolerance for those intolerant people who don’t agree.
When concepts like compassion and tolerance are promoted as
worthy goals, people tend to nod in agreement.
Deeper thought shows that the two are not as straightforward as they
appear. There is a lot of room for
discussion and many instances for honest disagreement. When clearly defined, compassion and
tolerance are probably good things, but both require a degree of moderation and
a less cavalier acceptance of vague, unexamined notions.
Whenever we try to peer into the minds of others to find
compassion or tolerance, or for that matter, economic understanding,
discipline, responsibility, critical thinking, and perspective, the only way to
get there is through observation and interpretation of behavior based on clear
definitions or examples. That is why I have posted 670 (and counting) explanations and examples to foster
agreement about what we are looking for in the five key dimensions and the
dangerous consequences of not finding it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment