Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Absolutely.
But, on general terms: what about going one step forward and mounting a campaign to force other people, say his employer, to act against him? Does that trouble you?
See, we've seen quite a few such campaigns in recent years from all kinds of pressure groups and *that* is what troubles me. Not just challenging ideas but retaliating for them; *punishing* people *solely* for their ideas.
Shouldn't there be a line somewhere if one wishes to take the high road?
|
Ah, but you see, fjtorres, the problems is, I think, that people who up the ante and take such actions feel entirely justified because their ethical code tells them that they are right.
When emotive and subjective words (like hateful, dangerous, treason) are used as "evidence" or points of argumentation one's own emotions take over and outrage can override logic and principle.
Not entirely dissimilar to people who have a book that tells them they are right or they have a priest that tells them they are right.
I believe that tolerance is only meaningful if it refers to things that are unpleasant and against one's own beliefs and moral code, otherwise what's the point?
One cannot say that they are tolerant with regards to someone that thinks just like them.
But intolerance is something that only ever comes from other people, never oneself...
Of course there are degrees of "offence" (saying believers in religion X are heretics is not the same as approving violence or discrimination against them let alone acting oneself) so not everything can be tolerated. I believe that "outrages" should elicit proportional degrees of response, e.g. it is entirely proportional to publicly criticize someone who you think is morally wrong, a bigot, etc. because of they said.
Ultimately, each society evolves codes of laws that penalize acts or words that the society (or at least the most influential in the society) agrees are unacceptable but, again, these penalties tend to be gradual and proportional.
So maybe the people who escalate from words to actions strongly believe that the society is misguided and they decide to impose penalties themselves according to their private moral code. But that places them against the rest of their society which, paradoxically, may result in action being taken against them by the very society they are trying to "cure".
In some cases this makes them even more radical (martyrdom is morally appealing to some) but such ways of thinking are outside of my comprehension.
Truly I may regret posting this as I may get some people angry which is not my intention.
Please note that I am no longer commenting about a separation between OSC's books and his "real life" views, I am just commenting on fjtorres's point which, I believe, has to do with escalation and how it comes about.
Maybe the internet is not a good place to have moral discussions like this as, not being face-tot-face people may come off as more zealous and aggressive than they really are in normal conversations and there are also no clues (tone of voice, facial expressions) that a person may have gotten so offended that the conversation should stop.