Tolerance vs Questioning

[Girder of Loins]

I have seen a common theme here involving moral questions. Everyone seems to say either two things: we should be tolerant, or we should try to find the truth.

My questions:

What is tolerance?

What is disagreement?

Can one disagree with someone over something, debate it, and still be tolerant?

Is questioning something and debating it morally wrong?

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible? Meaning, can one be equally tolerant of all ideas?

What is truth? Define the word, like,"Truth is what lines up with reality."

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

What is validity? Is validity the same as truth?

Can one person's belief be equally true as another? If so, why? If no, why?

 

[acropolis]

The answers to those questions are obviously going to depend on a person's definition of 'tolerance' and the opinion on the nature or morality and justice.

The most interesting question to me is "Is questioning something and debating it morally wrong?" The impulse is to say 'no, never,' but I don't think that is the case. There are times when by raising questions it is possible to sway opinion away from the truth and in some cases incite hatred based on that implied untruth. This happens when the person or people doing the asking are assumed to be some sort of authority on information or truth, such as news sources and 'experts.' By asking a question about Topic A they imply that the truth of Topic A is contentious, which can undermine accurate, truthful beliefs. If a major news network consistently asks a question like "Are Muslims more likely to be violent?", "Is Islam really a religion of 'peace'?", "Should the US tolerate Islamofascists teaching our children in schools?", it communicates to the audience that it is still unknown whether or not one religion or ethnic group is naturally more prone to violence, which leads to more people believing that a group like Muslims should be questioned, that they should be treated as threats. In cases such as this it is racism/religious intolerance veiled as mere questions, and isn't moral.

Another issue that the third example question in particular raises is that of the loaded question. That question is loaded with the assumption that 'Islamofascists' are real and that they are currently instructing kids in school. Any kind of answer validates that implied message, making it an unfair question to ask if there isn't actually any truth to the assumptions. It's like asking someone "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If they never beat their wife they can't even answer the question, and to ask that question publicly is to assert the claim that the person in question has, in fact, beat his wife. When the implied message is false, it is immoral to ask question such as that, particularly in a public manner.

 

[Hakan101]

I have seen a common theme here involving moral questions. Everyone seems to say either two things: we should be tolerant, or we should try to find the truth.

My questions:

What is tolerance?

Allowing those you disagree with to have their way.

What is disagreement?

Differing in views on an issue with someone else.

Can one disagree with someone over something, debate it, and still be tolerant?

Yes.

Is questioning something and debating it morally wrong?

Depends what your motives are.

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible?

No, because people can only tolerate so much.

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

What do you mean by "truth?"

Can one person's belief be equally valid as another? If so, why? If no, why?

What do you mean by "valid?"

 

[GryffinSong]

I have seen a common theme here involving moral questions. Everyone seems to say either two things: we should be tolerant, or we should try to find the truth.

In most things, I believe both are true. We should try to be tolerant, and we should seek the truth. There are certain things I won't tolerate, because they impinge on my life or body. In other words, my tolerance of your beliefs ends at my nose.

My questions:

What is tolerance?

Live and let live.

What is disagreement?

Can one disagree with someone over something, debate it, and still be tolerant?

Yes. If we do it without bullying, without violence, without harm. There's a big difference, for instance, in saying "I disagree with you and here's why" and "you're an idiot". The first is disagreeing with tolerance. The second is not.

Is questioning something and debating it morally wrong?

No. Questioning and debating are good ways to learn from each other.

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible?

I'm not sure what you mean by "in its purest form". If you mean I should tolerate everything and anything, then no. Because I will not tolerate violence to my person or my loved ones. I will not tolerate being belittled, marginalized, or forced into something. But I don't believe that's tolerance. I believe that's giving in, giving up, and letting people walk all over me.

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

I don't see that tolerance has any bearing on the search for truth. Tolerance is my attitude toward another person. Truth is, well, truth. Truth is reality. I'll tolerate other people's opinions, while continueing to seek the truth of things. I hope that others will accord me the same courtesy.

Can one person's belief be equally valid as another? If so, why? If no, why?

As long as they don't try to jam it down my throat, a belief can be THAT person's reality. Beliefs form a model of the universe, from which a person works and understands things. A conceptual framework for their lives. As long as one person's framework doesn't impinge on mine (see "nose" comment above), then while I might not think their belief is "truth", I don't necessarily think it's an invalid framework for that person to live by.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I stated some more questions to help clarify the argument. I will post my response to you guys once I feel there has been enough information.

 

[DaisyDay]

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible?

Purity is a romantic notion.

What is truth?

Beauty?

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

Neither. Tolerance certainly does not hinder truth, but may lead to its discovery. It's almost a null position, neither true nor untrue.

What is validity? Is validity the same as truth?

No, as one can have a valid argument without it being true - logically, anyhoo.

Can one person's belief be equally valid as another? If so, why? If no, why?

Why yes, it can. You may believe that a weeping cherry tree is the prettiest plant in nature, yet I may think it's just too precious. I may think Chihuahuas are the sweetest, most desirable pet in existence, yet you might find them intolerably yippy.

 

[quatona]

I have seen a common theme here involving moral questions. Everyone seems to say either two things: we should be tolerant, or we should try to find the truth.

My questions:

What is tolerance?

What is disagreement?

Can one disagree with someone over something, debate it, and still be tolerant?

Without disagreement there wouldn´t be any need for tolerance, in the first place.

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible?

I don´t know what you mean by "tolerance in its purest form".

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

Neither.

What is validity? Is validity the same as truth?

No, they are different concepts.

Can one person's belief be equally valid as another?

Depends on the subject, the issue, the field and the situation.

 

[Girder of Loins]

My answers.

What is tolerance?

Tolerance is the act of living with views that contradict or are different then your own. However, tolerance is not acceptance.

What is disagreement?

Disagreement is two opposites or two different things that come to light within an argument.

Can one disagree with someone over something, debate it, and still be tolerant?

Yes, as tolerance allows disagreement.

Is questioning something and debating it morally wrong?

No, as morals are found, and debate can find morals.

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible?

Yes, as tolerance in extremities can exist within reason.

What is truth?

What lines up with reality.

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

Tolerance(my definition) can inhibit the finding of truth. Some people become obsessed with tolerance can hinder the finding of lies.

What is validity? Is validity the same as truth?

Validity is something that has been deemed true. Validity and truth are one and the same.

Can one person's belief be equally valid as another? If so, why? If no, why?

No, as the Law of Non-contradiction states that two opposite statements cannot be true at the same time. Example: Billy is 100% Mexican. Billy(same Billy) is 100% Chinese. The two statements cannot be true, as a person cannot be 200% of something.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I have seen a common theme here involving moral questions. Everyone seems to say either two things: we should be tolerant, or we should try to find the truth.

My questions:

What is tolerance?

Allowing your fellow human beings to do as they wish with their own lives, whether you like or approve of it or not.

What is disagreement?

Two, or more, mutually opposing positions.

Can one disagree with someone over something, debate it, and still be tolerant?

Of course.

Is questioning something and debating it morally wrong?

Never.

Is tolerance in its purest form even possible?

If you'd said "acceptance", "love", "hate", etc., I'd say no. No ideal is possible in its purest form. But tolerance is not really an ideal in the same way. I can tell you now that absolute tolerance is possible because I tolerate all sorts of things and it doesn't bother me at all.

What is truth?

If I knew the answer to that question, I'd be a worldwide celebrity with millions flocking to me for answers, rather than debating morality on some Internet message board. As it is, I'm just like everyone else, searching.

Is tolerance morally wrong, as it hinders the path to truth, or is tolerance truth?

No, not wrong. No, it hinders no path. No it is not truth.

What is validity? Is validity the same as truth?

Logically speaking, validity is when the truth of the propositions of an argument guarantee the truth of the conclusion, i.e. If A, then B. A, therefore B. That is valid. Truth, however, requires the veracity of all propositions in an argument and the precise validity of its structure.

Can one person's belief be equally valid as another? If so, why? If no, why?

Valid in a logical sense doesn't really apply to beliefs. Valid in the everyday sense that it ought to be respected that a person has these beliefs, fair enough. In that sense, neither. All beliefs should be examined on their merit.

 

[zacharycampbell]

The question of religious tolerance is again raising its head in the UK. Schools will be able to ban pupils from wearing full-face veils in the UK.Tolerances of CNC machines completely depend upon the type of CNC machine that is being used to complete the project.

 

[GryffinSong]

...Tolerances of CNC machines completely depend upon the type of CNC machine that is being used to complete the project.

I don't understand this sentence, would you mind clarifying a bit? I don't know what "CNC machine" means, which might clear things up. Thanks.