Note: I've been scrambling to write this in response to a growing conversation on facebook, and I've had to squeeze it in between other things. In a desire to get in and say something, this thing is kind of a hack-job; I've not had the chance to edit it 100% properly, so the ideas may seem a little choppy at points, and I feel I bounce around a little. I've gone up and down it a few times, but it still feels unpolished and somewhat incomplete. Consider it merely a contribution, instead of a definitive statement.
In any debate with passionate people, the question of tolerance comes up. The Left has a sort of monopoly on tolerance - typically, they are painted as the side that wishes to be sensitive to the needs of the disenfranchised groups. Of course, this stance becomes more tricky when the Right comes along and begins to question the Left's capacity for tolerance by suggesting an intolerance towards, for instance, religion. This is a rather strange sort of meta-approach to a given conflict. How long must we suffer the ignorance of our opponents? How can we handle an opponent whose perspective demands the violation of our principles, while our principles demand the respect of their right to their beliefs? When someone is suggesting that another's entire perspective, the way that person interacts with and navigates the world, is false, the accused will undoubtedly feel oppressed. What level of tolerance is necessary when two ideologies come into direct conflict?
Pertinent at the moment are the conflicts of anti-theism and theism - each one claims the privileged perspective, whether it be Scientific Authority or Divine Mandate, stating that the other is just falling for some ruse perpetrated by either laws of Nature or the hand of God, depending on one's perspective. Humorously enough, each perspective is working for the improvement of the world, in spite of their many differences. But of course, there nuances in each perspective which explicitly conflict with the perspective of the other - this means that when it comes to discourse, discussions that touch upon metaphysics tend to come crashing to an end.
And of course, how could the meeting of two conflicting approaches end in any way other than a crash? If we're truly invested in the betterment of the world and society at large, then shouldn't we also be invested in eliminating anything that opposes that? This sort of morality-sanctioned intolerance is necessary insofar as we must be driven to propagate Goodness and eliminate Ignorance and Evil, but it cannot be held as the highest principle in the resolution of moral conflicts: the highest principle in such a conflict should always be the acknowledgment of the right of the opposition to contribute to debate. Morality is not a provable thing. It cannot be held as evident in any scientific way, though it can be suggested or intimated through natural processes. It can be derived from history or emotion, it can come from a desire or an aversion, but the only way to prove a "should" is to be 100% correct about the results that "should" might obtain. To light a fire, I should strike a match and hold the flame to something flammable; To obtain a bachelors' degree, I should go to college. But these are all based on obvious, extant structures. But what happens when it becomes, "We should legalize gay marriage because gay people have a right to get married," or "We should ban abortions because it is equivalent to murder," we are basing our claims on abstractions, things without a concrete base that both sides can agree to. Depending on who you ask, homosexuality is seen as a sin, and the very definition of what constitutes a "human being" is debatable. When the very definitions of the terms cannot be pinned down, we must return to the highest principle - the right to contribute.
The right to contribute is central to any debate aiming to find resolution. Without the assumption of the right to contribute, debate becomes mandate. What I find most humorous is that neither side takes the prevelance of their opponents views as any indicator that perhaps there is value in them - the instinct is to place greater value in our own experiences than in those of others (except where they affirm our ideas). Neither side cares that the other group of people (yes, they are all humans within the group, all, on average, as capable as anyone else) has found joy and contentment, to a certain extent, in this path. In these debates, before long, it does not matter that a given individual has said, "This is my life, and I will live it the way I see fit," - all that matters our own perspectives drown out the other, because sometimes, our desires bump into shared space. Though we come close enough for contact in such shared spaces as, say, healthcare coverage, we still managed to maintain a distance from our opponents. They become charicatures - while at one moment, you might be speaking with John Q., in the next you might suddenly realize that they're ACTUALLY Mr. Pro-Life. That critical distance, the stripping of names and subsequent application of labels, creates a window of opportunity for intolerance to get destructive - suddenly, we start doing things like saying "the Left" or "the Right," or referring, in broad strokes, to anti-theists and theists, their respective perspectives, redefining them as we see fit to fill our narrative and work within our worldview. A Creator suddenly becomes a "sky wizard," abortion becomes murder. Charicatures are easy to dismiss - charicatures, unlike people, don't hold ideas, they represent them.
There are people out there who find my perspective wholeheartedly offensive. The idea that I might support [liberal issue] is so preposterous, they feel the need to berate me for it, or to begin to support an opposing cause. Now, I think my perspective is pretty reasonable - I want women to have medicine, I like to see before I believe, and I don't like people pushing their views on others. Undoubtedly, however, this nameless nemesis sees it differently - I support the right to play God with the life of potential children, I have no relationship with God, and I would willingly let others burn in Hell. Considering this particular opponent believes in a God that cherishes new life but demands a working relationship and a belief in its authority, my perspective is sinister. I have become Mr. Heathen.
Now, while I don't particularly take issue with the opponent perspective proposed above, I think this post is a good time for me to play hypothetical hardball. Let's say that, like my opponent does for me, I find their perspective sickening. I think that his perspective, if propagated, would send the world backwards, and I want it to move forward, to progress! I cannot abide by his perspective having any sway in matters of policy if I am to be doing my duty to moral code. My perspective is literally asking me to be intolerant of the opposition.
This is, for me, the most useful aspect of intolerance - it is a drive of conflict, and I believe conflict is the way humanity decides what it does and does not like. We go through time picking up this idea and that idea, parse out the good ones and throw away the bad. Science does this, Christians do this (though it tends to be called, rather derogatively, "cherry picking"). So in that way, intolerance is functioning in this scenario to spur change, a good thing.
But this is also the beginning of the denial of the right to contribute, it is the start of the support of ideological slavery. Consider what it would mean if we were to allow the dismissal of perspectives - it removes the value of individuality. I feel I don't need to set out to prove the ways in which immediate dismissal of other perspectives destroys individuality - I find it to be fairly self-evident. But I do think it is important to note that if we prize individuality at all (and to prize individuality is to celebrate our right to our own perspectives), we MUST allow for the perspectives of others, regardless of how ignorant or incorrect they may seem. As I mentioned before, morality is entirely unprovable. The should's and should-not's of the world cannot be agreed upon universally through objective observation, and as such, they cannot be assigned a high value in such conversations. If we as a society were to begin prizing morality above humanity, debate should be abandoned, and cudgels adopted - if we consider that our fellow human cannot help to guide the communities he is a part of, then we should realize we are, in a way, considering slavery. This goes for both sides of any debate - when intolerance changes over from a drive to do what is best into a desire to subjugate and suppress the perspective of another, the debate has broken down and no good can come of the discussion.
If you find that you've succumbed to belittling another person's perspective, then you've also found that tender ground where your words are no longer contributing to the greater good. Instead, such actions only function to remove your opponent's right to contribute, and to deny your opponent their right to shape the communities of which they are a part. It doesn't matter if your enemy is using these tactics - the name-calling and disrespecting - because such base attempts at dismissal lack engaging content. In the end, if met with calm, reasoned, vigilance and reasonable ideas and expression, it is very easy to see how the negative words lack substance, and the people spewing those words are speaking to injure, instead of heal. Anyone who claims to be working to improve the world should realize that the world includes those people they oppose, and that condescending to them is not different than putting one's self above the rest of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment