Tolerance: Some food for thought

[Orginalcliche]

Stalos said:

But by saying that, you're stating that you yourself are right in saying there is no right or wrong. But if what you say is true, it totally invalids your actual statement!

Yep! Lifes paradoxial like that. There is right and wrong, factually but not morally. For me that statement could be true, but not nessarily for you, or for the rest of the population.

[Stal]

The said:

You believe things based on what you are taught. If experience teaches you something, you will continue to believe it. Did you see this summer's extremely loose movie adaptation of I, Robot by Isaac Asimov? In the movie Will Smith knows a robot can do know harm -- but he still believes they can.

It wasn't even a loose adaptation. They only got the rights to the name much later after the story started. XP It was merely an inspiration from Asimov's series.

And, you failed to mention, that the Robots did do harm.

Let's not forget you're even misinterperting what his character knew. His character knew that SUPPOSEDLY they were not able to do any harm and that was the story and chose to believe that the supposedly was wrong.

And even then if someone is questioning what they know, then what they know isn't an absolute to them yet and it doesn't fall into the same realm I talk of. You know an absolute to be true and you'd be hardpressed to force yourself to believe otherwsie.

Therefore if someone believes differently from something that is an absolute in their own perception (and therefore their own reality) that thing is not an absolute...

But the fact remains that no matter what they believe and think they know there is an underlying truth and fact that will always remain. Gravity is a good example.

In other words you cannot dogmatically say everything is arbitrary, especially when that phrase invalidates itself causing a paradox of impossiblility.

[Orginalcliche]

Obviously not everything is arbitrary, but everything that is not proven by science is.

[Stal]

Snorkles- said:

Yep! Lifes paradoxial like that. There is right and wrong, factually but not morally. For me that statement could be true, but not nessarily for you, or for the rest of the population.

And yet by your own admission, you're saying we're both right at the same time. With the contradictions, one of us has to be right or both of us can have it totally wrong as there is another truth...it is an impossibility that both of us are right on the matter. Paradox of impossibility and circular reasoning.

[Stal]

Snorkles- said:

Obviously not everything is arbitrary, but everything that is not proven by science is.

There is so much that is not known by science. Quantum Mechanics, so many aspects of Physics. Time. All things our human mind can't grasp. So they haven't proven some things yet, does that make said differing theories and ideas all right at the same time?

[mushroom]

I don't entirely agree that values are relative. Freedom is, to me, utterly non-negotiable, at least here and now*. If you try to restrict the freedom of another when that other isn't harming anyone (or can't be proven to be harming anyone), you are utterly in the wrong. So, to me, gay marriage is something that must be allowed. To me, you're wrong to try and prevent it.

That's mostly because freedom allows individuals to abide by their conscience. It's perfectly fine to try and bring others to your POV. It's not perfectly fine to try and force others to your POV. By, for example, preventing gay marriage (or attempting to prevent gay marriage), you're forcing people to abide by your belief that gay marriage is wrong. By allowing it, no one is forcing you to act as though it's right--you're still perfectly free to speak against it, and shun (to an extent) those that do it, and consider their marriages illegitimate (except when providing insurance and such), and not do it yourself.

Same with vegetarianism. Freedom allows us both to abide by our consciences. I'm perfectly within my rights to tell you all that you're wrong to not be vegetarians, or call you all specist bigots, or send you all PMs about the horrors of meat-packing plants (unless it crosses over into harrassment or spam), or whatever else I feel is appropriate in advancing my POV. I'm NOT within my rights to try and force you all to be vegetarians**. With dietary freedom, we're both accommodated. I still get to proclaim my view that no one should eat meat. You still get to ignore me.

*Maybe in other times and places it was possible to reasonably prove freedom of less importance. Maybe, once, it was necessary to curtail freedoms to ensure the survival of a society and the majority of its members. Right now, where I live, that isn't the case--allowing gay marriage and the ingestion of animal flesh isn't going to destroy America or kill its people.

**Maybe someday it will be possible to prove that treating other mammals/vertebrates/animals badly is as wrong as treating other humans badly, like it was possible to prove that treating other humans badly was as wrong as treating other members of one's own race badly. That would completely change the situation. Right now, though, it isn't.

[Stal]

KKM said:

I don't entirely agree that values are relative. Freedom is, to me, utterly non-negotiable, at least here and now*. If you try to restrict the freedom of another when that other isn't harming anyone (or can't be proven to be harming anyone), you are utterly in the wrong. So, to me, gay marriage is something that must be allowed. To me, you're wrong to try and prevent it.

That's mostly because freedom allows individuals to abide by their conscience. It's perfectly fine to try and bring others to your POV. It's not perfectly fine to try and force others to your POV. By, for example, preventing gay marriage (or attempting to prevent gay marriage), you're forcing people to abide by your belief that gay marriage is wrong. By allowing it, no one is forcing you to act as though it's right--you're still perfectly free to speak against it, and shun (to an extent) those that do it, and consider their marriages illegitimate (except when providing insurance and such), and not do it yourself.

Same with vegetarianism. Freedom allows us both to abide by our consciences. I'm perfectly within my rights to tell you all that you're wrong to not be vegetarians, or call you all specist bigots, or send you all PMs about the horrors of meat-packing plants (unless it crosses over into harrassment or spam), or whatever else I feel is appropriate in advancing my POV. I'm NOT within my rights to try and force you all to be vegetarians**. With dietary freedom, we're both accommodated. I still get to proclaim my view that no one should eat meat. You still get to ignore me.

*Maybe in other times and places it was possible to reasonably prove freedom of less importance. Maybe, once, it was necessary to curtail freedoms to ensure the survival of a society and the majority of its members. Right now, where I live, that isn't the case--allowing gay marriage and the ingestion of animal flesh isn't going to destroy America or kill its people.

**Maybe someday it will be possible to prove that treating other mammals/vertebrates/animals badly is as wrong as treating other humans badly, like it was possible to prove that treating other humans badly was as wrong as treating other members of one's own race badly. That would completely change the situation. Right now, though, it isn't.

That's something I won't go into simply because I only came to debase the arbitrary argument.

By the way, World War I. Espionage and Sedition Acts, extreme curtailing of our Civil Rights and freedoms. I believe the same type of thing happened during WWII. Maybe, not sure, those could indicate the reason for why you said "now".

[Orginalcliche]

In science and fact it is more of an issue of true or false rather than right nor wrong though.

[mushroom]

Stalos said:

That's something I won't go into simply because I only came to debase the arbitrary argument.

By the way, World War I. Espionage and Sedition Acts, extreme curtailing of our Civil Rights and freedoms. I believe the same type of thing happened during WWII. Maybe, not sure, those could indicate the reason for why you said "now".

Maybe. *shrugs* I don't know a lot of history. In any case, this is peacetime--there isn't much case to curtail (or refuse to recognize) most of the freedoms currently under general discussion (gay marriage, abortion...), except the debate about the Patriot Act.

Stalos said:

But by saying that, you're stating that you yourself are right in saying there is no right or wrong. But if what you say is true, it totally invalids your actual statement!

That doesn't invalidate her statement. You're using "correct-right" as if it were equivalent to "moral-right" and "incorrect-wrong" as "immoral-wrong." She isn't making any claim about whether or not a statement can be correct.

"There is no moral and immoral, only what one person may think is moral and the other may think is immoral, and then the collective descion."

She presents her claim as correct, not as moral. So, the elimination of an objective standard of morality has no effect.

[Stal]

Snorkles- said:

In science and fact it is more of an issue of true or false rather than right nor wrong though.

Perhaps, but even by your own ideology that statement you just made is arbitrary and therefore a contradiction is just as right as you are.

See how futile it is yet? Arbitrarianism has little, to no, application in life and ideology.

If that's all you have to respond with at this point, I'd say I've done my job of debasing it (or at least taking out a good chunk of support structure) fairly well and so will end my involvement in this debate.

Considering I'm still going by the armistice.

[Stal]

KKM said:

Maybe. *shrugs* I don't know a lot of history. In any case, this is peacetime--there isn't much case to curtail (or refuse to recognize) most of the freedoms currently under general discussion (gay marriage, abortion...), except the debate about the Patriot Act.



That doesn't invalidate her statement. You're using "correct-right" as if it were equivalent to "moral-right" and "incorrect-wrong" as "immoral-wrong." She isn't making any claim about whether or not a statement can be correct.

"There is no moral and immoral, only what one person may think is moral and the other may think is immoral, and then the collective descion."

She presents her claim as correct, not as moral. So, the elimination of an objective standard of morality has no effect.

Ah, a post made while I was typing:

Wrong, that statement cannot be proven as correct or incorrect. It is a matter of opinion, personal convictions, and one's own morality. Not as a correct/incorrect statement. No matter how you present it, a horse of any other color is still a horse.

And so her statement is invalidated by its own right.

[mushroom]

Stalos said:

Ah, a post made while I was typing:

Wrong, that statement cannot be proven as correct or incorrect. It is a matter of opinion, personal convictions, and one's own morality. Not as a correct/incorrect statement. No matter how you present it, a horse of any other color is still a horse.

And so her statement is invalidated by its own right.

Her statement may be incorrect, or not a statement to which correct/incorrect may be applied, but it isn't internally inconsistent.

She's stating, essentially, that "moral and immoral do not exist, only what one person thinks is moral and another thinks is immoral, and the collective decision." I assume she means that moral and immoral do not *objectively* exist, which I base on the vast majority of similar statements made by others. This first statement, that morality and immorality do not objectively exist, is not contradicted by the later statement that people consider some things moral and some things immoral, and that a consensus about what is and isn't moral can be reached by society. She's saying that "moral" and "immoral" are only created by humans; while a consensus on what will be called immoral and what moral can be reached, that doesn't make that consensus objective or true.

It isn't a statement on *her* morality; she isn't passing any sort of moral judgment. She is making a statement about the nature of morality itself. Another person can oppose that statement, and say that morality is objective. Neither person is making a moral judgment; she and the second person may both be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, against the death penalty.... They could both take the opposite position on all those topics. They could have opposite positions from each other. Both could have a consequentialist morality, and base their opinion of whether or not an action is moral on its consequences. Both could adhere strictly to the Ten Commandments. They could both be Roman Catholics. We don't know. She is not calling anything "moral" or "immoral," only stating that these are constructs of individuals and society and not existing independently of those. What a person believes about the nature of morality and what a person bases their personal moral system on are not the same thing.

[The Angry Artist]

Stalos said:

It wasn't even a loose adaptation. They only got the rights to the name much later after the story started. XP It was merely an inspiration from Asimov's series.

And, you failed to mention, that the Robots did do harm.

Let's not forget you're even misinterperting what his character knew. His character knew that SUPPOSEDLY they were not able to do any harm and that was the story and chose to believe that the supposedly was wrong.

And even then if someone is questioning what they know, then what they know isn't an absolute to them yet and it doesn't fall into the same realm I talk of. You know an absolute to be true and you'd be hardpressed to force yourself to believe otherwsie.

Therefore if someone believes differently from something that is an absolute in their own perception (and therefore their own reality) that thing is not an absolute...

But the fact remains that no matter what they believe and think they know there is an underlying truth and fact that will always remain. Gravity is a good example.

In other words you cannot dogmatically say everything is arbitrary, especially when that phrase invalidates itself causing a paradox of impossiblility.

I didn't mention the robots because they didn't do harm. It was the...ahem...(I don't want to spoil anything) "brain" that did it. They had no choice. They were under control. Before the new robots, he knew the robots couldn't cause harm.

Did I say everything is arbitrary? I don't believe I did, but perhaps you misinterpreted what I said. Anyway.

Gravity is a poor example. Gravity can be proved through science. Science can prove gravity in such a way that there is no question about it. Values cannot proven to be right, because, we must ask ourselves, 'What are values?' Values are a set of beliefs we invented to justify actions. Values are a result of human intelligence to order ourselves. Values are arbitrary because they are not absolute. Values are wholly beliefs and not facts -- unlike gravity, values change between person to person.

Also, as soon as you question what you know, that becomes a belief until it can be proven to be either fact or fiction. Will Smith questioned what he knew and found that robots could not choose to do harm, as he already knew. Their inards were changed so that they were controlled. They did not choose for that to happen.

[Killix]

If my religion was based around giant pink rabbits that came to Earth millions of years ago to paint the sky blue and mix their blue blood with sand to create water, and I truly believed in it, would I be right or wrong?

You may not like my theory, but you can't prove it didn't happen As well as not being able to actually prove it wrong, I would not be able to prove it right. Therefore not one of us is truly "right"
I would just believe in something. In my mind I would be right, in everyone else's mind, I would be crazy and people would probably look at me and treat me as if I were.

note: If this makes no sense, just ignore it XD

[Oily]

To focus more on tolerance:

I believe, tolerance is simply allowing others to have and to hold their own views, as long as they do not cause harm to others. It does not mean agreeing with or believing in those views.

Part of tolerance is tolerating intolerance

A tolerant society is easily created by removing extremism, and perhaps in a way, some religion. Without religion, the values believed absolute and irrefutable by some, are not present. Britain is an extremely tolerant society, and has a very low number of extremist religious people. A kind of secular set of values arise, formed mostly by society's influences and thoughts for the best, and thus tolerance becomes easy, due to similar beliefs. This is not to say there is no religion in Britain - there are a large number of religions, but they do not condemn. Most preach tolerance, in fact. As long as their values are constant with this society, the actual religious beliefs don't matter. If they believe this and that to be crimes, and this not be, then the fact that they believe monkeys made the earth out of cheese is irrelevant.

If you believe in equality and freedom and certain values, then it is very easy to tolerate race and sexuality and any other thorny issues. And as long as the religions in a society share those values to some extent, it is also easy to tolerate them. I do not feel my Christian friends are any different to my atheist or agnostic friends. I can't even remember which religion half of them are most of the time. I like to live in such a tolerant place, where the same values and morals are held, regardless of religious beliefs.


However, regarding religious beliefs, I do not actually consider myself right and all others wrong. To me, that sounds like egotism and intolerance. I believe we are all entitled to different beliefs, and I have chosen mine. I cannot prove my religious convictions, except to myself. It is paradoxical, but somehow my mind has wrapped itself around it. I would never say my religious beliefs are right above all else. They are just mine

I do however believe strongly in my morals and values. As long as others believe in those, I will believe them right, and others in misjudgement. This is because my moral values will affect people, whereas my religious ones do not.

Obviously, when you base morality on religion, which often happens, the whole thing becomes confused. Just remember that I will tolerate plenty of beliefs about God, the nature of God, and the judgement on stuff that I do not believe will harm people. With certain morals, I cannot tolerate them as much

Sure, it's not total tolerance, but I don't think someone can ever claim to be that. I can at least lay claim to being open minded, and generally uncaring about beliefs that do not harm others.