Monday, July 08, 2019
Is relativism the pathway to tolerance?
Relativism is supposed to be the pathway to tolerance, yet it tolerates intolerance if the culture accepts it. In fact, one of the things that differentiates mainstream Western culture from other cultures around the world is the value we place on tolerance. From the attack on Valentine's Day in Indian culture, to the rigidity of Japanese business culture, to the one child policy in China, to the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia, to the tolerance for rape cultures throughout the world, for example in Korea, to the practice of female genital mutilation in parts of Africa, we see practices in foreign cultures that do not respect human rights and are not tolerant. If our multiculturalism pushes into relativism, though, we are forced to say that there is nothing really wrong with the intolerant practices. To stand up for tolerance, you have to believe in an objectively binding moral law, something that hangs together nicely with theism, but fits with atheism only if you work very hard to get it to fit, a la Erik Wielenberg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Victor,
FYI:
Erik Wielenberg link is broken.
The underlying assumption is correct. A morality based on tolerance can only lead to relativism. The list of atrocities given are not violations of tolerance, they are violations of a moral standard. Tolerance erases the moral standard. Tolerance has value when there are differences that can be tolerated. The list of moral atrocities are examples that cannot and should not be tolerated. They should be opposed.
Now it's not borken.
I do see tolerance as a social virtue, a willingness to not allow certain types of differences or disagreements to be a basis for curtailing social relationships. Some important kinds of tolerance are possible only if you disapprove of someone's conduct, or disagree with someone's belief. If there are no differences, there is nothing to tolerate.
I can't see toleration as a first order moral value, more a strategy for reducing moral tensions. I choose one of your less objectionable behaviours and tone down my expressions of disgust with it in the hope that you will do the same for something you find objectionable in me. If you reciprocate the result is a lowering of the moral temperature produced by our social friction. A classic offer to cooperate in a non-zero sum game. Further, toleration shown in one generation may lead to a weakening of moral revulsion in the next, and over many generations a convergence of moral values. Moral revulsion may be a learned response to a behaviour or situation, just as juvenile monkeys learn to fear snakes by seeing adult monkeys express fear in the presence of snakes. Expressing fear is innate in monkeys but not innately triggered by snakes. And this game-theoretical analysis is independent of whatever meta-ethical theory the parties might hold, though the strategy may be easier to adopt in some cases than others.
Post a Comment