Does humanism lead to tolerance paradox?
Does humanism lead to tolerance paradox?
8 comments
-
Yes, or course. In fact, humanism to some degree requires an opposition to anti-human ideas, like intolerance, therefore a humanist is almost implicitly intolerant of intolerance, an earnest practicioner of the paradox.
-
I suppose it's a matter of how you go about it. You can not tolerate someone who is intolerant of a specific group of people by either offering understanding and support, explaining how hard it is to change your beliefs and that you'll help them to be a better person, or you can punch them.
The first option is harder, and feels less satisfying - especially if they've hurt people you care about - but it is the solution that has the potential to turn intolerance into tolerance, rather than just making them firmer in their beliefs and hate you more.
Also, tolerance is not inherently good and intolerance is not inherently bad. For example, I am intolerant of people keeping slaves - and you would have to twist the meaning of intolerance to make owning a slave intolerant, rather than just bad - and I don't think that is a bad thing to be intolerant of.
-
Do you mean this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
-
No. People who call out the 'tolerance paradox' are misunderstanding social tolerance. Tolerance of other humans is part our social contract to live with each other without violence. If you abandon the social contract by being hateful or violent to others, you are no longer protected by it. There is no paradox.
-
Nobody "calls out" the tolerance paradox. It's those who refuse to tolerate intolerance who call it the tolerance paradox.
-
If you abandon the social contract by being hateful or violent to others, you are no longer protected by it.
Pretty much the oldest rule of society and the first one established.
Outlaws are romanticized, but back in the day it was being such a shithead that you no longer had any protection under law.
Someone could rob, beat, and kill you in front of the sheriff and the mayor and nobody would do anything.
If you were going to ignore the rights of others, you would have zero rights. They turned to life's of banditry in the wilderness because that was the only option. But most often they'd starve or be killed first.
-
by definition it is if you tolerate the intolerant, intolerance increases
-
-
The best summation of this was done in a speech by Kurt Vonnegut, Why my dog is not a humanist.
The full speech explains what you are going after.
8 comments