Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- toleration [2024/02/26 13:51] – ultracomfy
+++ toleration [2025/08/14 10:25] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~NOTOC~~
+~~Title:Toleration~~
 <WRAP column right 18%>
 {{page>Templates:Philosophy}}
 </WRAP>
+<WRAP centeralign>Philosophy/\\
+<fs xx-large>Toleration</fs></WRAP>\\
+Toleration is the absence of objection to behaviors, attitudes or similar things where others unrightfully believe that they justify objection. This, I believe, is a reasonable definition when one puts the word "Tolerance" at the beginning of the sentence; however, I think that tolerance is much better categorized and contextualized from a more fundamentally philosophical perspective:
-<fs xx-large>Toleration</fs> is the absence of objection to behaviors, attitudes or similar thing where others unrightfully believe that they justify objection. This, I believe, is a reasonable definition when one puts the word "Tolerance" at the beginning of the sentence; however, I think that tolerance is much better categorized and contextualized from a more fundamentally philosophical perspective:
+Decisions, acts, beliefs and so on and so forth are [[utilitarianism|moral or immoral based on how they affect you and the people around you]]. Some beliefs would cause harm, others not so much. Now, in a perfect world we would all agree on what beliefs cause harm, at which point the creation of the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" would never be prompted. The word "intolerance" emerges only when disagreement over the effect of a belief or act exists. Commonly, the word "intolerance" is used to describe such things that unnecessarily, ie. immorally, hurt individuals or groups of individuals. Not all hurt is "bad", but that which is bad **is** intolerant **if** the motivation for that hurt is based on [[prejudice]]. Theft isn't necessarily "intolerant" if it is motivated by personal gain only, but if it is motivated in part by prejudice then at least the motivation for the act is considered "intolerant". From this, tolerance emerges as the word that simply means the opposite, being accepting of things that others are not accepting of.
-Decisions, acts, beliefs and so on and so forth are [[utilitarianism|moral or immoral based on how they affect you and the people around you]]. Some beliefs would cause harm, others not so much. Now, in a perfect world we would all agree on what beliefs cause harm, at which point the creation of the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" would never be prompted. The word "intolerance" emerges only when disagreement over the effect of a belief or act exists. Commonly, the word "intolerance" is used to describe such things that unnecessarily, ie. immorally, hurt individuals or groups of individuals. Not all hurt is "bad", but that which is bad is intolerant if the motivation for that hurt is based on [[prejudice]]. Theft isn't necessarily "intolerant" if it is motivated by personal gain only, but if it is motivated in part by prejudice then at least the motivation for the act is considered "intolerant". From this, tolerance emerges as the word that simply means the opposite, being accepting of things that others are not accepting of.
+A distinction needs to be made, again, that objecting to //actually// immoral things is //not// considered intolerant. If an act or belief is actually harmful - like, say, a murder - then calling this out is not based on prejudice but on moral principles. From this, calling out harmful sentiments - like, say, "all blacks are evil" - is not intolerant either. It is a rejection of intolerance. While, sure, calling this out //may// "hurt" the person who actually believes it, "hurting" them is not unnecessary or immoral.((Here, "hurting" can mean, for example, the limitation of that person's freedom of speech. CANCEL CULTURE.)) In fact, the intended effect is to stop that person from hurting more people by hurting them; ie. hurting them is intended to have a positive impact in the long run.((And to protect the person who is actually being discriminated against.))((Care should be taken at how much hurt to inflict. One should inflict as little hurt as possible while maximizing the beneficial effect. Excessive hurt may end up somewhere in the realm of intolerance (towards the intolerant) if your reaction is excessive, which can quickly slide into the sphere of yourself being prejudiced against the intolerant.))
-A distinction needs to be made, again, that objecting to //actually// immoral things is //not// considered intolerant. If an act or belief is actually harmful - like, say, a murder - then calling this out is not based on prejudice but on moral principles. From this, calling out harmful sentiments - like, say, "all blacks are evil" - is not intolerant either. It is a rejection of intolerance. While, sure, calling this out //may// "hurt" the person who actually believes it, "hurting" them is not unnecessary or immoral.((Here, "hurting" can mean, for example, the limitation of that person's freedom of speech. CANCEL CULTURE.)) In fact, the intended effect is to stop that person from hurting more people by hurting them; ie. hurting them will have a positive impact in the grand scheme of things.((Care should be taken at how much hurt to inflict. One should inflict as little hurt as possible while maximizing the beneficial effect. Excessive hurt may end up somewhere in the realm of intolerance (towards the intolerant) if your reaction is excessive, which can quickly slide into the sphere of yourself being prejudiced against the intolerant.))
+----
+<WRAP column right 18%>
+{{page>Templates:Secularization}}
+</WRAP>
+Classic examples of intolerance include [[Racism|racism]] and [[Bigotry|bigotry]]. Racism is a misguided belief in the superiority of a specific group of people over others, which satisfies the "unrightful", the "prejudice" and the "objecting" condition. Recognizing the unrightful part and therefore //not// objecting to other races is //not// prejudiced and therefore widely understood as being "tolerant". Bigotry works the same, just that the target group is usually different and the prejudice expressed in a different form as well.
+Objection!
+  * Rightful, no Prejudice: If you object to something but do so rightfully, you are not intolerant. Objection to racism is rightful, therefore not intolerant.\\
+  * Unrightful, no Prejudice: If you object to something without being right about it, but not out of prejudice, you are //wrong//.((Racists will say that their hatred towards black people is founded on evidence and not just personal belief, but that is <del>usually</del> not true.))\\
+  * Rightful, with Prejudice: If you object to something rightfully, but out of prejudice, you are lucky to have come to the correct conclusion. The objection itself may not be wrong, your reasoning likely is intolerant.
+  * Unrightful, with Prejudice: Your average racist. Intolerant.
+No objection! In that case you may be prejudiced, but not intolerant, as you //are// tolerating things you may falsely believe are objectionable. If you make no objection on something that is //rightfully// objectionable, you are merely indifferent/not acting on it.
+====== Perspective ======
+Now obviously, toleration is dependent on perspective. Someone who objects to black emancipation on what he truly, from the bottom of his heart, believes to be justified objections will not consider themselves intolerant.((Unless they decide to take it up as a patch.)) Restricting that person's freedom of speech will be seen as being intolerant towards them. Now, this doesn't mean that doing so may or may not be justified, but it implies that any person who just believes in their wrongness strongly enough //will// feel that way.