Is the value of tolerance of other ways of doing things "relative"?

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Everything is relative

    What do we 'tolerate'? What is good to 'tolerate'?

    We each have a scope of values that either allow us to tolerate or cause us not to tolerate any number of things.

    Will you tolerate murder? Not likely. Will you tolerate people liking foods that you don't? Probably.

    But will you tolerate toxic ideologies? Maybe, in the guise of accepting people's choices. But maybe not, based on an overall public effect that is a detriment to society.

    Will you tolerate gender roles of whatever slant? Maybe, because you like them yourself, or consider it a personal choice. But maybe not, based on a view that is growing in prevalence that the typical is somehow toxic.

    Some things seem like foregone conclusions, some are not. It used to be that one of the biggest values out there was patriotism, loving your country and what it stands for. Now, that is oft times seen as toxic, and unwelcoming. I have seen some go so far as to say that other cultures are good, but people should be ashamed of western culture.

    Either way, it is all relative.

  • Tolerance Is Very Relative

    I believe that tolerance is a very important matter. The United States has instituted quite a few rights that were created because other people were not tolerant of what another believed to be a right. One can not value tolerance if they can not value someone else's way of doing things.

  • Morality is relative and that includes tolerance

    Tolerance has no intrinsic value just like nothing has any intrinsic value. Everything only has value because it is given value. So just because morality is relative does not bind us in any way to respect and allow other points of view. We can feel free to impose our completely relative point of view that nonconsentual or child female genital mutilation is wrong for example. We can feel free to impose the point of view that genocide and slavery are not ok, these values need not be absolute for us to be justified in enforcing them. For instance Mauritania still has slaves. The good old US of A should stop them! And instead of democratic idealism we should impose an anti-slavery and pro-freedom of religion(Mauritania also executes apostates from Islam) dictatorship since Mauritania is already a democracy and still isn't doing anything to stop slavery.

    Some people would argue that this is wrong because you are interfering with the ways of another culture. But morality is relative so interference is only wrong if we decide that it is. I see no good reason to decide that it is other than that as a practical matter it's a necessity to pick your battles. If it was feasible I'd want the US and the international community to stop every country that persecutes homosexuals but that's not feasible so I'll promote the more reasonable "let's get rid of slavery" position.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.