Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Paradox of Tolerance

Limsock
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 9:05:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Hello everyone, this is my first time visiting this site! I have a question that I'd like to pose and get some insight on.

There is a type of logical argument that goes a little something like this:
Person A: We should be tolerant
Person B: We should be intolerant, saying otherwise makes you intolerant.

Or for another example:
Judge: We should "live and let live". Guilty! sentenced to ___________.
Murderer: why are you punishing me, "live and let live"!

How can this paradox be resolved in a debate?
Is person A's or the judge's intolerance justified? why or why not?
ContraDictator
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 11:39:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 9:05:08 PM, Limsock wrote:
This is why libertarians and free-speech advocates end up with their skewed view of the world trying to trigger SJW's on the daily.

They think that because 'freedom' includes the capacity to abuse people with your freedom that to impede the freedom to abuse is somehow immoral. They are idiots who think pure freedom is a good thing, and it is most certainly not.

Forcing tolerance and other means of left wing liberalism is merely how you keep your community stable and happy instead of letting everyone do whatever they want and abusing others.
I tend to fight any opinion, regardless of my agreement or disagreement to it. I believe to only fight opinions that you disagree with is a sign of a weak and rigid state of mind.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:41:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 9:05:08 PM, Limsock wrote:
Hello everyone, this is my first time visiting this site! I have a question that I'd like to pose and get some insight on.

There is a type of logical argument that goes a little something like this:
Person A: We should be tolerant
Person B: We should be intolerant, saying otherwise makes you intolerant.

Or for another example:
Judge: We should "live and let live". Guilty! sentenced to ___________.
Murderer: why are you punishing me, "live and let live"!

How can this paradox be resolved in a debate?
Is person A's or the judge's intolerance justified? why or why not?

Tolerance is overrated. Some things should not be tolerated. Person A is a hypocrite, but the judge is justified in being intolerant of murder.
I don't have a signature. :-)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,006
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 3:43:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It isn't just a trite saying that 'You can have too much of a good thing'. Tolerance and respect for life are good things - unless they are take to absurd extremes. It is one thing for a society to be tolerant of, say, different forms of religious faith and a different thing for a society to be tolerant of wanton murder.

Philosophical arguments are often unrealistic because they get cast as 'all or nothing' - as if the only choices are complete tolerance of everything or complete intolerance of everything, or of allowing or disallowing killing in all and every form.

Such 'binary' debates are intesting and fun, but are of limited applicability to the real world where almost everything is a 'shade of gray'. These days most people agree killing is bad, so most places no longer execute prisoners even for murder. But is euthanasia bad? Is abortion bad?

In such cases there are arguments either way and I think that in the end people don't take a view on such matters on the basis of consistency with a philosophical view but on 'gut instinct'. One then chooses the moral theory that most resembles one's moral intinct and to subsquently claim (even believe) it was the moral theory that made them take their moral stance!!

Allowing for a sliding scale of tolerance rather then restricting it to all or nothing would make internet debates and arguments a lot more complicated and unwieldly (and probably less fun), but a sliding scale (which is the only realistic form tolerance can take in the real world) pulls the teeth from any apparent paradox.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 6:08:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 9:05:08 PM, Limsock wrote:
Hello everyone, this is my first time visiting this site! I have a question that I'd like to pose and get some insight on.

There is a type of logical argument that goes a little something like this:
Person A: We should be tolerant
Person B: We should be intolerant, saying otherwise makes you intolerant.

I would solve this by extending the position of Person A:
-We should strive towards tolerance in a society. We achieve that by individually adapting a tolerant behaviour as well as discouraging intolerant behaviour of others.

Instead of saying we should always be tolerant, one says we should promote a general goal of tolerance. This allows us to be intolerant of the intolerant. That may sound like a contradiction, but the first use of the word intolerant in that sentence can only be applyed to an already existing level of tolerance.

Or for another example:
Judge: We should "live and let live". Guilty! sentenced to ___________.
Murderer: why are you punishing me, "live and let live"!

How can this paradox be resolved in a debate?
Is person A's or the judge's intolerance justified? why or why not?

The point is not to always let people live, rather it is to promote life as a whole. If you let a muderer live then you are not promoting life.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 6:26:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 11:39:36 PM, ContraDictator wrote:
At 6/2/2016 9:05:08 PM, Limsock wrote:
This is why libertarians and free-speech advocates end up with their skewed view of the world trying to trigger SJW's on the daily.

SJW don't need anyone's help to get triggered, they'll do it on their own.

They think that because 'freedom' includes the capacity to abuse people with your freedom that to impede the freedom to abuse is somehow immoral. They are idiots who think pure freedom is a good thing, and it is most certainly not.

That is a strawman. No libertarian will advocate that we let people get away with rape, they all accept limits to our freedom. And this applies to free speech as well. Even libertarians won't allow death threats. With freedom of speech arises a question of where we draw he line.
The problem with outlawing abusive speech is that any criticism can be labbeled as abusive. Preventing criticism on that ground allows ideas to roam unchallenged, possibly leading to a dogmatic ideology. This is exactely was is happening with SJW, they only want their voices heard and will throw personal accusations towards anyone who does not want to sit and listen to them, even if they have the exact same ideas!

Forcing tolerance and other means of left wing liberalism is merely how you keep your community stable and happy instead of letting everyone do whatever they want and abusing others.

A society in which criticism can be shut down is a breeding ground for dogmatic ideologies and echochambers of opinions. This cercainly does not lead to a stable community.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:59:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:41:00 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 9:05:08 PM, Limsock wrote:
Hello everyone, this is my first time visiting this site! I have a question that I'd like to pose and get some insight on.

There is a type of logical argument that goes a little something like this:
Person A: We should be tolerant
Person B: We should be intolerant, saying otherwise makes you intolerant.

Or for another example:
Judge: We should "live and let live". Guilty! sentenced to ___________.
Murderer: why are you punishing me, "live and let live"!

How can this paradox be resolved in a debate?
Is person A's or the judge's intolerance justified? why or why not?

Tolerance is overrated. Some things should not be tolerated. Person A is a hypocrite, but the judge is justified in being intolerant of murder.

Ya, not tolerating murder is generally a pretty good thing to do.
Meh!