Thread: How far should tolerance go? Where do we draw the line?

Everyone should be respected, especially those who are dangerous or considered enemies. Even people you think deserve no respect because they are simpletons or hypocrites should be given respect because what goes around has a tendency of coming around. I think self-control is something we all have to master.

Tolerance, however? If we're talking about just pure morality, we can tolerate whatever does not harm anyone else. And I mean that whatever a certain person does doesn't directly harm another person's life or livelihood. Then again, since our world is divided up into countries, some of which practice beliefs which do actually harm another group of people but not take their lives (ex. lack of womens rights in Islamic states), we have to adapt a different moral approach. And I'm not talking about nations which slaughter their people; that is never acceptable. But acting with intolerance to nations with some human rights issues will only alienate them and turn them against us. You can't try and control another country, you have to let them come to the conclusions themselves. For countries with issues like womens rights, we should be tolerant of their beliefs but maintain our position strongly. By not forcing them to change, it is more likely they will gradually adapt to a more modern view of human rights naturally, like most developed countries. Then again, like I said, depending on the level this can be different. If people are being slaughtered for a belief... then I think the world has a responsibility to intervene.

I guess.

Originally Posted by Savy

Everyone should be respected, especially those who are dangerous or considered enemies. Even people you think deserve no respect because they are simpletons or hypocrites should be given respect because what goes around has a tendency of coming around. I think self-control is something we all have to master.

Tolerance, however? If we're talking about just pure morality, we can tolerate whatever does not harm anyone else. And I mean that whatever a certain person does doesn't directly harm another person's life or livelihood. Then again, since our world is divided up into countries, some of which practice beliefs which do actually harm another group of people but not take their lives (ex. lack of womens rights in Islamic states), we have to adapt a different moral approach. And I'm not talking about nations which slaughter their people; that is never acceptable. But acting with intolerance to nations with some human rights issues will only alienate them and turn them against us. You can't try and control another country, you have to let them come to the conclusions themselves. For countries with issues like womens rights, we should be tolerant of their beliefs but maintain our position strongly. By not forcing them to change, it is more likely they will gradually adapt to a more modern view of human rights naturally, like most developed countries. Then again, like I said, depending on the level this can be different. If people are being slaughtered for a belief... then I think the world has a responsibility to intervene.

I guess.

In a question like this, what is wanted, I would imagine, are not endless lists of particular examples, but the definining characteristic of human behavior which can be applied to every instance. By what principles do we attempt to "control ourself?"

The question will bring you down to the frist principles of reason itself, and from there you will make a sad discovery, as there are two basic categories of logic, there are two fundamental categories of psychologies among mankind. One will never, can never, recognize nor use standards of human behavior. How do you deal with a primitive division among animals who all look fairly much alike on the outside, but are very different on the inside?

We have morals, but we do not force them upon everyone. We have a moral responsibility for extreme issues, but we must control ourselves on minor ones which will repair themselves far better without our intervention. We are inclined to disrespect others, but we should learn to respect everyone as a potential teacher, enemy, friend, lover, etc. We control ourselves in that we control our impulses, including the ones to intervene or not intervene and to respect or not respect.

Originally Posted by Savy

Even people you think deserve no respect because they are simpletons or hypocrites should be given respect because what goes around has a tendency of coming around.

It is silly to fault someone for their ignorance.
Good post.

Originally Posted by Savy

We have morals, but we do not force them upon everyone. We have a moral responsibility for extreme issues, but we must control ourselves on minor ones which will repair themselves far better without our intervention. We are inclined to disrespect others, but we should learn to respect everyone as a potential teacher, enemy, friend, lover, etc. We control ourselves in that we control our impulses, including the ones to intervene or not intervene and to respect or not respect.

Your repeating yourself, but not answering the question.

We know what an inch is, because we have established a standard. How do you establish standards in human behavior?

Hint, Know thyself. What are you? Why are you? What is your function? How do you achieve it?

Because within a specific culture you have a standard morality, but, since our world is not one culture and is divided across many, ethics become situational outside of your own cultural group.
Which is what I was saying in my first post.

Originally Posted by Savy

Because within a specific culture you have a standard morality, but, since our world is not one culture and is divided across many, ethics become situational outside of your own cultural group.
Which is what I was saying in my first post.

Taking a piece of the pie, is not the whole pie. But what you are implying is Man is not man. You don't see that.

If you have one and only one definition of what a thing is, where are you getting your differences from?

The same problem is expressed in the way this country, for example, is run. "All men are equal." Then why are there laws specific to whites, blacks, the lame, etc? Are these laws treating men as men, or as different things?

The ability to experss a standard in words, does not imply the ability to manipulate your thoughts accordingly.

So, what are you? A jew, a christian, a republican, a woman, a this or a that? Can you establish human behavior based upon what a man is not?

Man = man. There is no line of demarkation. There is no tolerance to achieve. There is, however, one goal, as stated in scripture--help bring man home.

So some of you cannot respect somebody that doesn't respect you? Then who is who?

I'm not saying mankind is perfect, or that we have complete control over ourselves.
I'm saying that no matter if the goal is impossible, we should strive to have respect and tolerance for one another.

And yes, you are correct, but the problem is is that the world doesn't work that way. People don't see the similarities, they see the differences, however faint. People inherently have to judge what's around them. Yes, maybe one day we will be in a position to achieve true equality, but as of now, we are not. So what I'm proposing is a kind of tolerance that can work in the modern world, even if there are slip-ups and mistakes made along the way. Because as of now we don't see each other as the same creatures, and it is hard for us to even accept those different from us. So instead of leaping straight into equality, we have to first learn to tolerate and control our actions.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So some of you cannot respect somebody that doesn't respect you? Then who is who?

What can or cannot be predicated of a thing is determined by that things definition. It is independent of gods and men.

I.e. it is what you learned at the foundation of set theory, or going further back, The Theory of Forms. More basically, from the definition of a thing. The boundary, the form, the definition, determines class membership.

Originally Posted by Savy

I'm not saying mankind is perfect, or that we have complete control over ourselves.
I'm saying that no matter if the goal is impossible, we should strive to have respect and tolerance for one another.

And yes, you are correct, but the problem is is that the world doesn't work that way. People don't see the similarities, they see the differences, however faint. People inherently have to judge what's around them. Yes, maybe one day we will be in a position to achieve true equality, but as of now, we are not. So what I'm proposing is a kind of tolerance that can work in the modern world, even if there are slip-ups and mistakes made along the way. Because as of now we don't see each other as the same creatures, and it is hard for us to even accept those different from us. So instead of leaping straight into equality, we have to first learn to tolerate and control our actions.

What I am doing is simply providing choices, by providing free educational material. What a person does with it, is their choice. The rest only evolution can do--not man. This is why I work on my philosophy project, and why I seek a mate at doing it. I have a rare intelligence, but not the mind to use it well.

Let us examine the doctrine of tolerance. Let us say that we owned a car with a problem. does tolerating the problem help our transportation needs or does the car spiral down until it fails? Tolerance is impotence. Impotence leads to depression. One has to either take the time, no matter how long, to learn how to fix the car, or go without--to fail.

Imagining that I had understanding to address this problem was not a thought that I allowed myself when I was young.

To remove the obstruction from one's own eye has always been the answer, no matter if one spends their entire life trying. This is not, nor ever has been a doctrine of impotence, a doctrine of tolerance.

Comparing a car to a group of people is a false analogy. They are not even remotely similar.
The goal isn't to "fix" people to our own beliefs, but to allow them to have their own beliefs, as long as they are not catastrophic, and therefore live in tolerance, if not acceptance, of each other.
People's divergent moral codes aren't a problem to be fixed. The problem is the intolerance inherent in humanity.
Tolerance is the road to acceptance, which is the road to "removing the obstruction from one's own eye".

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You didn't allow yourself to discuss complex issues when you were young? How is that relevant?

You really don't understand. Don't worry about it.

Man qua man, is not different from man qua man. Broke is broke.
When you find a difference, it is not a difference qua man.

Everyone may have a different diet, however, the digestive system has a basic correct functioning.

Let me see if you can respond to an analogy. In logic, there is a set of certain basic principles, Everything derived that is correct can be derived from those principles. There is no use that is valid of a symbol that contradicts the foundation.

There is no basic function of morality. Morality is a completely human imposed illusion, created to help us bear a responsibility we feel for how we treat others and the world around us. Animals do not have morality, it is not a system inherent to all beings. Humans only have the morality that they create for themselves and their cultures, it forms independently within each region and individual, therefore there is no "basic correct functioning". Digestive system is also an incorrect analogy. We don't look at morality in blacks and whites, correct or incorrect, but pure shades of grey.

True, I do not understand your point of view.

Originally Posted by Savy

There is no basic function of morality. Morality is a completely human imposed illusion, created to help us bear a responsibility we feel for how we treat others and the world around us. Animals do not have morality, it is not a system inherent to all beings. Humans only have the morality that they create for themselves and their cultures, it forms independently within each region and individual, therefore there is no "basic correct functioning". Digestive system is also an incorrect analogy. We don't look at morality in blacks and whites, correct or incorrect, but pure shades of grey.

True, I do not understand your point of view.

That is where you are wrong.

An environmental acquisition system of any living organism must obtain something from the environment, process that which it has acquired for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.

The human mind is one of a group of environmental acquisition systems.

Its function is not arbitrary. Therefore, there is no belief of mankind that is grounded in illusion or in anything arbitrary that is valid. Perhaps now you understand that you cannot reason, unless you know yourself.

You see, there is a foundation, provided by nature, which binds all men together--man is just too undeveloped to see it.

I was not saying it was arbitrary, but that it is psychological. My point is there is no one form of morality, no ultimate human morality. There is no "broken" or "fixed" because morals vary greatly based on the person, their status, the place they live and most in importantly, their general culture and how they were raised within that culture. Individual cultures create ethical systems which best suit their environment, their way of life, their manner of survival. Today a lot of these moral traditions are obsolete due to the ease of survival in the modern world, and so many modern countries find themselves losing old morals like "keep strangers at a distance" or "divide the labor by gender" which used to help us survive, but no longer serve a purpose. We abandon these old principals for a new, higher minded morality which is based on pure ideology, and the pursuit of happiness for all people. Countries which are still developing haven't reached this point, but I think, unless it is extreme, we should tolerate those countries because they can't escape the moral revolution which the entire world is now going through.

I agree, morality serves a purpose to maintain and promote life of the organism in that that is the very spark of culture, and since beliefs are inherent to culture, and culture is derived from a need for survival, it it does relate backwards. What I mean by illusion is that it is not strictly real, but rather something which we need in a psychological way, not in a physical one. Like time, for example, or emotions. They are "illusions", they are concepts. They are things which we have a real psychological need for, but which are not necessary to life.

I'm not really sure if we're disagreeing at all at this point.

Originally Posted by Savy

I was not saying it was arbitrary, but that it is psychological. My point is there is no one form of morality, no ultimate human morality. There is no "broken" or "fixed" because morals vary greatly based on the person, their status, the place they live and most in importantly, their general culture and how they were raised within that culture. Individual cultures create ethical systems which best suit their environment, their way of life, their manner of survival. Today a lot of these moral traditions are obsolete due to the ease of survival in the modern world, and so many modern countries find themselves losing old morals like "keep strangers at a distance" or "divide the labor by gender" which used to help us survive, but no longer serve a purpose. We abandon these old principals for a new, higher minded morality which is based on pure ideology, and the pursuit of happiness for all people. Countries which are still developing haven't reached this point, but I think, unless it is extreme, we should tolerate those countries because they can't escape the moral revolution which the entire world is now going through.

I agree, morality serves a purpose to maintain and promote life of the organism in that that is the very spark of culture, and since beliefs are inherent to culture, and culture is derived from a need for survival, it it does relate backwards. What I mean by illusion is that it is not strictly real, but rather something which we need in a psychological way, not in a physical one. Like time, for example, or emotions. They are "illusions", they are concepts. They are things which we have a real psychological need for, but which are not necessary to life.

I'm not really sure if we're disagreeing at all at this point.

Your saying is not arbitrary but arbitrary, escapes your notice, therefore, there is no possible way to communicate. Thank you for your interest.

An element, like time, is not a thing, however, when you combine the two elements together, form and material difference, you create things from these elements. For example, a second is real, but time is not. A line segment is real, but linearity is not. This does not mean they are illusions.

Do you believe that correct psychologic is different than correct logic?

or that logic is different from logic? You see, I believe that psycho-logic only denotes where the logic is performed--not that logic differs from logic.

It is not arbitrary. It is first based on survival and environment, when survival is obsolete, it moves on to the next highest priority: utility. You could say the goal was utility all along, but I think it's correct to be more specific since the shift in morals is based on that lack of survival instinct in the modern age.

Okay, so is morality is an element then what is its counterpart? The results of morality are real, but not tangible. There is no form. Morality is an idea used to link people together, explain the world, tell them what they can and cannot do, give them a role in life, etc. It is an organizational tool created by humans, it is not tangible. A second is also a tool. Seconds don't exist, they are ideas created by humans. They are tools used to measure a person's life. They have no tangible result. How is a line segment real? There are no line segments in the world. Line segments are mental tools used by humans in order to give meaning to the world, in order to build things. Sure, you could count 1 Mississippi and call it a second, but can you touch that? Does it have any impact, really, other than to organize the human life? You can point to the straight edge of a ruler and call it a line segment, but the truth is it's just a ruler and "line segment" is merely an idea of a component of that ruler.

You only make me wonder, if someone with your level of understanding and drive could ever learn the Two-Element Metaphysics? Well, that would take some time in any case. Thank you for the conversation.

If you choose to pursue it, if you even suspect that there is a real foundation as to how all people should be, I have posted free study material--mostly the various translations of the Platonic dialogs in audiobook form for free.

Well, I have no idea what that is. No big surprise there, I'm sure. Lol.
And uhm... you're welcome? Thanks to you, too.

I hate it when arguments end peacefully.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I hate it when arguments end peacefully.

Kinda miss 4th of July, huh?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Kinda miss 4th of July, huh?

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Heavy Sleeper

I don't get it.

An american holiday celebrated with a lot of noise, and smelly gunpowder displays. The Big Bang Theory put into practice.