posted 09-27-2001 04:35 PM               

I think it's possible -- and not unethical -- to keep an open mind toward any and all points of view and ways of coming to those points of view. But being open-minded does not have to include in its definition excusing the inexcusable. I can search for reasons why there are people in the world who would want to see thousands of Americans and people of other nationalities die horribly, and even, to a certain degree, appreciate why those reasons might exist given a certain set of circumstances. But that doesn't make the act right. Certainly, the light from "what's right" will take several thousand years to reach the terrorists that hijacked those planes -- just so everyone knows how I feel.

And as you've said, intolerance is intolerable. I think that an unwillingness to be open-minded is one of the reasons this happened. I've always felt that the one mindset that's inexcusable is the one that prevents you from listening to people that aren't like you.

posted 09-27-2001 05:57 PM               

quote:

---

But being open-minded does not have to include in its definition excusing the inexcusable.

---

quote:

---

I do know that from a sociological standpoint, there are a few nearly-universal and that killing innocents is one of those taboos...

---

posted 10-02-2001 11:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Ott:
I've always felt that the one mindset that's inexcusable is the one that prevents you from listening to people that aren't like you.

---

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, as this sums up my own personal views rather nicely. The thing is, this stance DOES eliminate a lot of positions from consideration, and not just lunatics like these terrorists. Just as an example -- our position commits us to the value judgment that Catholicism is wrong. We say there's no single best way to apprehend moral truths, Catholicism says there is. I don't see a way to square that circle.

Now, we can say that we have no problem with Catholics practicing Catholicism unless it interferes with other people's beliefs. But really, what that means is that we have a problem with people practicing Catholicism, because if you strictly followed Catholicism, you WOULD interfere with other people. So there's an inherent inconsistency in our position.

quote:

---

Dave, if the question you're asking is whether there are things that are invariably right and wrong - well, jeez, I dunno. I'd like to say "yes," but I'm reluctant, because it's difficult to commit to a universal statement like that.

---

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Is it that some things are yes/no, right/wrong issues, and others are more flexible? What differentiates the two? Why are we justified in saying to a terrorist, "You're wrong," and then saying to a devout Christian, "You can't tell me the way I live my life is wrong?"

Now, my own personal answer is to say that I'm willing to entertain the notion that my pluralism is, in fact, incorrect. If I see evidence that an absolutist position is in fact 'right,' I'll give up my belief that there is more than one way to see the world. (The question then becomes what kind of evidence I'll accept, which is where some of my other beliefs come in. That's probably a topic for elsewhere.)

quote:

---

I do know that from a sociological standpoint, there are a few nearly-universal taboos, and that killing innocents is one of those taboos, but maybe things are changing.

---

posted 10-14-2001 11:27 PM               

quote:

---

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, as this sums up my own personal views rather nicely. The thing is, this stance DOES eliminate a lot of positions from consideration, and not just lunatics like these terrorists.

---

It seems that there are a lot of people out there who embrace a given religion but manage to get along nicely with, and even engage in constructive discourse with, people of other faiths. (If anyone's seen the movie Keeping the Faith with Edward Norton and Ben Stiller, the realationship that Norton's priest and Stiller's rabbi have isn't an implausible one.)

posted 10-17-2001 09:40 PM               

quote:

---

Why are we justified in saying to a terrorist, "You're wrong," and then saying to a devout Christian, "You can't tell me the way I live my life is wrong?"

---

posted 02-03-2002 03:51 PM            

quote:

---

Someone else might say that faith, transcendental visions, and tradition are the proper standards for guiding action, and that other standards of evidence are credible.

---

Since no one could possibly know, through faith or reason or whatever, that their opinion is right, my view of tolerance is to be practical and tolerate nothing that interferes with you and everything that doesn't. If a Catholic says that his views mandate his interference in my life, then I don't have to tolerate him and his views. That's how I see tolerance: don't tolerate anything that interferes with you and your marriage and family and all that is personal, tolerate everything that doesn't. By contrast, a Catholic couldn't claim the right to not tolerate me because of my religion, because my religion doesn't interfere with his personal life. Even if his religion mandates that he not tolerate me, he still would have to or be intolerant. I don't have to tolerate all viewpoints, just the ones that don't interfere with my personal life.

quote:

---

Now, as a pragmatist, I get out of the circle by saying that I'll use rational arguments if rational arguments succeed more often than not in helping me attain my goals, if they help me make accurate predictions about events that will occur. It, too, is an act of faith, but it's an act of practical faith. But in order for it to work, I need to constantly test the principles I'm using, to make sure that they actually work, and that I'm not holding onto them because I'm stubborn.

This is how I ultimately justify my intolerance of intolerance, or how I say actions like those of terrorists and murderers are wrong. I don't believe they're wrong in any absolute, transcendental sense -- I just believe they're impractical, that a life built on those principles would be constantly frustrated and ultimately doomed. On the other hand, if I discovered that saying certain incantations or performing certain rituals led me to success, I'd probably wind up altering my faith in rational arguments.

---

I like that. I"ve always felt that morality isn't about what's "wrong", as if there's some great moral Answer Key somewhere in the universe, but about what's the most beneficial in a tangible sense to everyone. That's where all the rules about "thou shalt not kill/lie/steal" came from, anyway: people decided that it was more practical to help each other rather than to harm.

Except that, if you're speaking to a devout Catholic, they may tell you that it is immaterial whether principles "work" and are practical or not---you should still live by them because God wants you to. You think that the point of principles is to successfully navigate our world; a Catholic may disagree with you and say that it is to serve the will of God.

I can't help but agree with Hume and say that empirical evidence is the only thing to trust when you are coming up with concepts that apply to everybody, since empirical evidence is the only thing that everyone understands.

posted 02-04-2002 11:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olympe:
Well, I would say that if you're trying to make rules that work for everyone, then you should make them based on something that everyone can understand.

---

This makes perfect sense to me. What I think happens is that many people don't really care about what works for everyone; they just assume that what works for them is what's right. I often wonder if the idea of being part of a select group is what inspires certain types of moral absolutists. Certainly that seems to be the roots of some of the original colonists' religious beliefs.

quote:

---

And everyone can understand the physical world because we can all perceive it, in generally the same way (and yes, I know that it's possible that you see green where I see blue, but you and I will both die if we're chucked off a cliff, so physical perception clearly counts for something).

---

I just want to say I really liked this -- couldn't have put it better myself.

quote:

---

Except that, if you're speaking to a devout Catholic, they may tell you that it is immaterial whether principles "work" and are practical or not---you should still live by them because God wants you to. You think that the point of principles is to successfully navigate our world; a Catholic may disagree with you and say that it is to serve the will of God.

---

posted 02-06-2002 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

I often wonder if the idea of being part of a select group is what inspires certain types of moral absolutists. Certainly that seems to be the roots of some of the original colonists' religious beliefs.

---

True. The Puritans were so isolated from dissidents that they didn't have to deal with those of other beliefs, they could just brush them off or hang them. If you want to live with the rest of humanity, which America started doing later, it would force you to make rules that everyone could deal with.

quote:

---

I just want to say I really liked this -- couldn't have put it better myself.

---

Heh, thanks.

To get back to something someone said way before:

quote:

---

But you can't use rational arguments to prove that you should use rational arguments.

---

But isn't the idea that circular reason is false itself a rational argument? So you're using a rational argument to refute the idea that a rational argument can prove that rational arguments are good. And isn't my pointing this out a rational argument?

When you come right down to it, isn't all thought reason, including belief? Everyone thinks "I should do X because of Y", which seems to me to be "reasoning". The only difference between what different people think Y--that is, the motive for doing what they do. Even a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/whatever will say, "I believe I should do this because the Bible/Quran says so." Which is still reasoning, because he/she offers a reason for acting a certain way. Belief is just bad reasoning, isn't it? It doesn't seem like a different thought process at all.

posted 03-13-2002 02:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olympe:
But isn't the idea that circular reason is false itself a rational argument? So you're using a rational argument to refute the idea that a rational argument can prove that rational arguments are good. And isn't my pointing this out a rational argument?

---

Good point. Not trying to dodge the issue at all, but I tend to think of it this way: reason/logic points out its own limitations. If I'm operating within the realm of logical arguments, and I suddenly reach a point where I face a contradiction or a pradox or what have you, then that is the point where I have to step outside reason/logic to continue. Rationality and logic are tools that I pick up in my effort to navigate the world, and the contradictions I run into are the equivalent of striking a piece of strong rubber with a hammer in order to cut it -- the tool gladly demonstrates why it's not fit for the job, and it's up to me to put the tool down and find a better one.

quote:

---

When you come right down to it, isn't all thought reason, including belief? Everyone thinks "I should do X because of Y", which seems to me to be "reasoning". The only difference between what different people think Y--that is, the motive for doing what they do. Even a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/whatever will say, "I believe I should do this because the Bible/Quran says so." Which is still reasoning, because he/she offers a reason for acting a certain way. Belief is just bad reasoning, isn't it? It doesn't seem like a different thought process at all.

---

I do think there's a point at which this breaks down, though. Ever get into one of those situations where a kid asks you why so-and-so is the case? You give a reason, and then the kid asks why that's the case, and so on and so on? Eventually you hit a point where you can't really come up with an answer. Whatever that fundamental thing is that lets you build up the rest of your belief system is, I don't think you can explain it through rationality. It's pre-rationality, instinct, call it what you will.

posted 07-08-2002 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

I do think there's a point at which this breaks down, though. Ever get into one of those situations where a kid asks you why so-and-so is the case? You give a reason, and then the kid asks why that's the case, and so on and so on? Eventually you hit a point where you can't really come up with an answer. Whatever that fundamental thing is that lets you build up the rest of your belief system is, I don't think you can explain it through rationality. It's pre-rationality, instinct, call it what you will.

---

Well, even our instincts are subject to reason. Like, our most basic instinct is our survival instinct, and we have other instincts like the instinct to reproduce and the instinct to be altruistic to other people. But even the survival instinct can be nullified if someone feels they have no reason to live.

quote:

---

Good point. Not trying to dodge the issue at all, but I tend to think of it this way: reason/logic points out its own limitations. If I'm operating within the realm of logical arguments, and I suddenly reach a point where I face a contradiction or a pradox or what have you, then that is the point where I have to step outside reason/logic to continue. Rationality and logic are tools that I pick up in my effort to navigate the world, and the contradictions I run into are the equivalent of striking a piece of strong rubber with a hammer in order to cut it -- the tool gladly demonstrates why it's not fit for the job, and it's up to me to put the tool down and find a better one.

---

Anyway, even if you firmly believe in intuition and faith and whatever, your own personal intuition isn't going to convince anyone else that you're right. Reason is necessary if only to justify your beliefs to others.

posted 07-18-2002 03:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olympe:
Anyway, even if you firmly believe in intuition and faith and whatever, your own personal intuition isn't going to convince anyone else that you're right. Reason is necessary if only to justify your beliefs to others.

---

posted 01-20-2003 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

If I don't agree with your assumption about what a point, line, or space are, then no amount of mathematical skill in the world will convicne me of your theorems.

---

posted 02-19-2003 02:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olympe:

But mathematicians come to definitions about points/lines/space through rational discourse.

---

No they don't. If they did, then there'd be some other undefined, unproven starting point. You can't keep going back in an infinite regress. If we weren't all hard wired to have similar primitive jumping-off points, we wouldn't get anywhere.

DOn't get me wrong, I'm not knocking rational discourse and investigation. I'm just saying that you can't use reason to establish reason - it's like using a word in its definition. You can use reason to give yourself a better sense of what your unproven starting points are, but those starting points are still unproven.

quote:

---

They don't just say "well, a point seems like it would be this." If they did, we wouldn't have half of the mathematical knowledge that we do.

---

No, it's not that arbitrary - it's based on shared experience and it's based on the fact that the system that uses that undefined starting point "works" - it helps us predict and control future events. It's based on discourse, just like many other customs - but it's not a purely rational discourse.

quote:

---

Intuition is subjective and personal. My intuition could be telling me that there is no God, while yours could be telling you that there is one. Reason is required to bridge this gap between your intuition and mine.

---

posted 04-22-2003 12:56 PM            

But my point is that after starting from this basic intuitive experience, any ensuing discussion would need to be empirical/rational in order for both parties to understand it.

And my point is also that it is human nature to use "X because Y", rational arguments after you start from this basic intuitive place. That's just the way people think. If you ask devout Christians why they believe in God, they'll say "because the Bible says so," and they'll have a reason why the believe in the Bible, and so on and so forth until, as you said, you finally hit some basic instinct that can't be justified by reason.

posted 07-15-2003 01:21 PM            

Although I still say that a devout Christian's (or any other religious person's) fundamental assumption is *not* that the Bible or whatever is true. It's all very well to say "you gotta believe"....but believe in what? You can talk all you want about faith, but how do you decide where to put your faith? It's based on where you want to put it. And so the religious person's fundamental assumption is that what he/she has decided to believe must be true, that what rings true for him/her is indeed true, that his/her subconscious/inner voice/what-have-you is reliable.

As for there being no Right Way of thinking: I agree and disagree. There's no "right" way in the transcendental sense...but in the sense that "right" means "correct"? I don't care how much faith you have that God will save you from dying if you jump off a cliff--you'll still die. A drunk person who jumps out of a window doesn't believe that he'll die--too bad for him, he's dead. Of course, you could argue that rationality is only correct for this world and not the "higher" world--but that would involve assuming that humans have spirits that live on in a higher world, which is a nonrational assumption made about *this* world (you assume that this world has a "spiritual" aspect) where rational thinking is correct.

To get back to the open-mindedness topic, I actually think that it's totally consistent to say that you won't tolerate intolerance. To say that you have to tolerate something that's inherently intolerant is a bit like saying that you can't kill in self-defense. A terrorist's lifestyle is by definition interfering with mine, because he's trying to kill me. I am interfering in his lifestyle in order to stop his initial interference with mine, which IMO is perfectly acceptable. I don't think it has anything to do with "right" or "wrong," just peaceful coexistence with others, which is what most of us want--and if I were talking to someone who doesn't want peaceful coexistence, then there would be no conversation about what rules should apply in our society in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Olympe (edited 07-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Olympe (edited 07-15-2003).]

posted 08-04-2003 12:55 AM               

1) It strikes me that in the pursuit of tolerance, it is far more frequently the case that the sacrifice of beliefs falls far more frequently on religious people than the non-religious. In my circles, I've seen far more religious-minded people willing to consider a godless cosmos for the sake of argument than agnostics or athiests willing to consider the implications that a god really established an institution to communicate with creation.

It's a really big thing to ask someone to suspend their belief in the most important reality in their lives...it seems like it would be less difficult and friendlier for the non-believer to suspend disbelief.

If more people were actually willing to consider what they are asking other people to give up when they call for a common grounds of discourse, things might get far less hostile.

2) I just recently thumbed through a vey old copy of C.S. Lewis's Case for Christianity that someone had lying around. It's a quick read being a fifty page transcription of radio broadcasts he made in the midst of WWII (back when analogies to Nazis actually meant real people who were trying to take over your country).

The first half C.S. Lewis's case attempts to do precisely the kind of thinking being discussed in this forum...starting from scratch, which he does mostly from arguing for evidence supporting the now outdated concept of "natural law." Lately, I've been having a very hard time buying into theories of "natural law" -- the idea that a universally "right" way of doing things is inscribed in the very being of humanity, but Lewis makes some provocative arguments. The second section is pretty much to evangelize...but the first is on target for our debate here.

posted 08-06-2003 02:07 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray Bossert:

1) It strikes me that in the pursuit of tolerance, it is far more frequently the case that the sacrifice of beliefs falls far more frequently on religious people than the non-religious. In my circles, I've seen far more religious-minded people willing to consider a godless cosmos for the sake of argument than agnostics or athiests willing to consider the implications that a god really established an institution to communicate with creation.

---

I think that in many - although not all - cases that has to do with the fact that in our society when it comes to decisions on policy or public matters, it's usually the religiously-motivated who seek to restrict the non-believers, and not the other way around.

quote:

---

It's a really big thing to ask someone to suspend their belief in the most important reality in their lives...it seems like it would be less difficult and friendlier for the non-believer to suspend disbelief.

---

Quite frankly, that's a bunch of molarkey. Whatever belief system a person has, whether or not it acknowledges a higher being and/or earthly institutions as reflecting the will of said being, is a vital and positive part of that person's outlook and being. It is not more or less painful for one person or another to examine other hypotheses or re-examine his or her own. If some people find it less jarring than others, perhaps it's because their belief systems better prepare them for living and communicating in a diverse human society.

quote:

---

It's a little bit from Mark Shields on the matter of the Democrats for Life organization getting the runaround from their own party, despite its own pronouncement of seeking to promote all of its diverse voices:

---

This, like the Democratic Party refusing to let former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey speak at national conventions, ia great example of how 'intolerance of intolerance' can get out of hand. I can understand the party having a pro-choice plank. I can understand how the party sees this as a tolerant thing, allowing those with different beliefs about abortion to live their lives according to those beliefs. But the fact that there is a healthy debate on these issues means that that question is not settled yet. For the party to short-circuit the discussion on the topic is something that impedes the search for a resolution and works against the creation of a culture that can work through disagreements. So while acting in the name of tolerance, these actions do far more harm than good to that ideal.

Now, for the purpose of a thought experiment, let's come up with a more extreme but fanciful (and hopefully less-emotionally charged) example. What if a group wanted to set up a 'Democrats for Kicking Puppies' organization, and argued that the best way for the Democratic Party to achieve its goals was to engage in several rounds of puppy-kicking every day? This is a very extreme view, held by a tiny fraction of the party constituency. Is the party justified in saying, 'We don't want anything to do with puppy-kicking, we think it's harmful and counter-productive to our goals, and we don't want to even acknowledge your existence'? I think it might be reasonable for the community of Democrats to say, "Our understanding of the values of our party suggests that this puppy-kicking proposal is simply incompatible with our core values. A puppy-kicker, by definition, is working at cross-purposes to the Democratic Party, and therefore a puppy-kicker can't be a Democrat." (As opposed to the Democrats for Life, where the party is still acknowledging them as Democrats but then trying to stifle their voices.)

posted 08-13-2003 08:11 PM               

2) I have to learn how to quote on this thing...
"If some people find it less jarring than others, perhaps it's because their belief systems better prepare them for living and communicating in a diverse human society."
This seems to reinforce my point that it would be easier and friendlier for the non-believers to suspend disbelief? So how come it doesn't happen more often?

3) On the matter of kicking-puppies...Maybe I need to learn what the criteria are to be officially a Democrat, but it seems to me how can the Democratic party tell puppy-kickers they are not Democrats? If I register Democrat and vote Democrat, can they kick me out if I'm publicly exposed as a puppy-kicker? And to reconstruct the argument from the editorial, what does it mean if the majority of people think puppy-kicking is okay? Should the Democratic Party be allowed to excommunicate individuals or groups who kick puppies?

The problem with the Democrats for Life was that the Party would not even set up a link to them on their website...which is hardly devoting huge resources. If a large percentage of the voting population were okay with puppy-kicking, shouldn't they at least give them about 2K of webspace?

The "intolerant" tolerance shows how flawed our countries experimentation with democracy is, since the powers that be can silence even the majority of people while claiming to act on behalf of the majority's best interest.

posted 08-13-2003 09:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray Bossert:

1) Why do you think it's generally religious minded people that are trying to restrict others? Isn't the whole prayer-in-schools debate and the fight over how to interpret the separation of Church and state the attempt of non-religiously minded people to restrict the freedom of speech?

---

In a word, no, it isn't. Prayer in schools or the ten commandments on public grounds are efforts to promote one ideology over another, to restrict the faith-neutral environment our society sought to establish in its public spaces. (My caveat on the prayer in schools thing is that if someone were to solve the logistical problem of providing the time, space, and whatever else necessary for members of any faith AND students of no faith to exercise their personal beliefs for whatever time, then I would have no real problem with it. But I haven't seen such a proposal yet.)

quote:

---

2) I have to learn how to quote on this thing...

---

[ quote ] text to quote [ / quote ] without the spaces.

quote:

---

"If some people find it less jarring than others, perhaps it's because their belief systems better prepare them for living and communicating in a diverse human society."

This seems to reinforce my point that it would be easier and friendlier for the non-believers to suspend disbelief? So how come it doesn't happen more often?

---

First of all, stop saying disbelief. It's intellectually dishonest. Second, for purposes of a discussion, I can suspend my beliefs, and imagine how I would proceed if I held a different set of beliefs. If I don't see solid evidence that suggests that my beliefs are on firm ground, I'll likely opt for whatever solution leaves the matter as open as possible, until more information is available. But when it comes to making an actual decision, I'm not going to pretend I don't actually believe something and defer to members of a particular faith just because they're members of a particular faith.

If what you're suggesting is that I'm as umwilling to back down from my belief in pluralism as many religious are to back down from their faith, well, that's sorta the problem I posed at the very beginning. And yes, I acknowledge it's a problem. The best solution I've found, as I said, is to recognize that as convincing as I find the evidence for pluralism as a basis of social interaction, that evidence is not 100% conclusive, and contradicting evidence may come down the pike and force me to revise my beliefs.

quote:

---

3) On the matter of kicking-puppies...Maybe I need to learn what the criteria are to be officially a Democrat, but it seems to me how can the Democratic party tell puppy-kickers they are not Democrats? If I register Democrat and vote Democrat, can they kick me out if I'm publicly exposed as a puppy-kicker?

---

I don't actually consider 'registering Democrat' or 'voting Democrat' to equal membership in the Democratic party; those are legal procedures set up for handling things like primaries and what not, and I know many people who change their voting affiliation to vote for particular candidates or because they feel there are a greater number of candidates running in one party or another.

Digression aside, I think that the membership of the party could indeed kick you out of any role in defining the platform, selecting candidates to endorse, etc., etc. if you were revealed to be a puppy-kicker.

quote:

---

And to reconstruct the argument from the editorial, what does it mean if the majority of people think puppy-kicking is okay? Should the Democratic Party be allowed to excommunicate individuals or groups who kick puppies?

---

Majority of people or majority of Democrats? And my point in creating the example was to create a situation DIFFERENT from the one in the editorial.

quote:

---

The problem with the Democrats for Life was that the Party would not even set up a link to them on their website...which is hardly devoting huge resources.

---

No, but it is a very lukewarm endorsement. That said, I agree with you, they should allow the link. My point in the puppy-kicking example was to point to something that a heavy majority do NOT approve of.

quote:

---

If a large percentage of the voting population were okay with puppy-kicking, shouldn't they at least give them about 2K of webspace?

---

You did see the point in my earlier message where I agreed with you on the Dems for Life issue, right?

quote:

---

The "intolerant" tolerance shows how flawed our countries experimentation with democracy is, since the powers that be can silence even the majority of people while claiming to act on behalf of the majority's best interest.

---

Well, as has been pointd out many a time, we haven't really experimented that much with democracy yet. And I'm not sure your example is one of a majority being silenced. The Dems for Life aren't a majority of the Democratic Party, or they'd be able to change the party platform.

quote:

---

I also think the concession being suggested,
"Our examination of the issue suggests that slavery under any circumstances is at cross-purposes to the goals of society, and our faith in this conclusion is so strong that it would take extraordinary evidence to the contrary to make us devote significant resources to considering the issue further," is awfully tricky since it is so easy to alter what constitutes "extraordinary evidence."

---

Tricky, perhaps, but who said citizenship was easy? That said - it's the same standard we use to justify our faith in gravity, I think we can make it work on moral issues as well.