Education and 'tolerance'

[nothumb]

Here's one for you.

It is often repeated that 'educated people tend to be more tolerant,' or that knowledge of real facts and perspectives on other societies tends to lead to a greater degree of tolerance and comfort with different ways of life.

It is also often repeated that American higher education is highly 'liberal.' Usually this connotes liberal in the pejorative, vague and inaccurate sense, used today as an insult to describe the semblance of a left wing party we have, and its common policies. As a person who is both highly educated and also highly leftist, I have no problem admitting that higher education in this country tends more to the supposed 'left' of our narrow political spectrum, or that, within the confines of the clouded political terms employed in debate around here, higher education could be described as somewhat leftist (although I think the momentum is in the other direction at this time).

So, this begs the question: is 'tolerance' (a virtue of so-called liberals in this country) a natural extension of education? Does it really result, empirically and demonstrably, from greater knowledge of the world surrounding us? Or does the near-left of higher ed attempt to essentialize education and its merits to include one of the pillars of its own political platform?

If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

Thanks
NT

[nothumb]

I sort of had a feeling this one might not get anyone going. Too wonky.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I sort of had a feeling this one might not get anyone going. Too wonky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for you Nothumb,

Does it really result, empirically and demonstrably, from greater knowledge of the world surrounding us?

This isn't my field, but I suggest you try here:
http://scholar.google.com/

Good luck.

If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

I say yes and no. I've seen plenty of very well educated people who were complete bigots. This is especially true when it comes to social classes, sexual behavior, rectreational activities (weed), image projected by your clothing, if you went to Harvard or some "lowly" state school. Some people just have blinders on, others need to be smacked around a little, others just need to get out more. No amount of education can help those people.

Hope that helps.

I have a paper to write......and I'm really tired. No sleep for me. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I don't think education necessarily = more tolerance.

Take modern-day "liberals" for example. While many of them extend or profess great tolerance to foreign cultures and countries (even too much, in my opinion, to the point of putting serious human rights abuses under the category of "just another cultural way"), I think many of these supposedly tolerant liberals are actually highly intolerant of political ideologies other than their own (note the violent or semi-violent demonstrations, the blockings of traffic and vandalisms; and campus censorships and coercions).

I don't think it is true of you, NT: but consider that many leftists are both highly educated and highly intolerant.

My personal take is if you want real tolerance, shitcan modern day "Liberalism" and revert to Classic Liberalism.

So: what is tolerance a function of?

I think tolerance is more a function of empathy, and of a willingness to live-and-let-live, than of education. The ability to put one's self in another's shoes emotionally (and perhaps intellectually) is the main factor, it seems to me. If one is able to empathize, and if one does not think that his/her own view must be the view others too must hold in order for the world to be an OK place, then one is generally tolerant. If however one lacks empathy, or subscribes to the idea of forcing others to be (or to think) like one does, then one is intolerant. I'll also note here that all major "group-think" generally tends towards intolerance of the individual.

If people would just respect the right of everyone else to do or be whatever they want (as long as they aren't hurting others), the world would be full of tolerant people. And there you have much of M's personal philosophy in a nutshell.

[Non_Comformist]

Here's a short answer for you. True tolerance comes from wisdom not knowledge.

[Broken Glass Can]

I think educated people are better at "pretending" to be tolerant. They know they can push an agenda by acting tolerant while being terribly intolerant of groups they do not like (groups like religious people, capitalists, people with solid family values, and the middle class). It is phony tolerance for the most part, not real tolerance.

[vulturesrow]

NT,

Good to see you posting here, nice post.

[ QUOTE ]
If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. First off, some liberals tend to be just as intolerant of certain groups, just as some conservatives tend be intolerant of certain other groups. BGC pointed this and I wont expand further. I am more interested in your unspoken question which is how does one acheive true tolerance.

I think I am a pretty tolerant person. I am sure that some people on here are laughing at that but no one on here knows me outside of twoplustwo. I have a Bachelors degree, and I have taken a handful of postgrad classes, so my education is strictly average in my opinion. There are two things I think that contribute to my tolerant worldview.
One is that I grew up in a very poor family, single mom who worked two jobs, blah blah. So I know what its like to struggle. Another reason is my faith. Now some people will argue that religion is intolerant or it's adherents are. Now I am not saying that intolerant religious people dont exist. They do. But they are wrong. The Church (Im Catholic) clearly states that we should hate the sin, not the sinner. A good example is homosexuality. I dont believe that homesexual are right. Never in a million years would this prevent me from being friends with a homosexual, attack (verbally or physically)them, etc. To see the ludicrousness of those things, just ask one of the fervently antihomosexual religious types if they unleash that sort of rhetoric against all their friends (since we are all sinners).

One last thing. I think education can certainly be an enabler for tolerance. That is being well educated helps challenge your viewpoints. But education in and of itself doesnt make one tolerant.

[ACPlayer]

It is worth thinking about what is intolerance.

A good example is homosexuality. I dont believe that homesexual are right

What is the difference between saying that "I dont belive that homosexual(s) are right" and saying that "I am not a homosexual". In one case you are denigrating and passing judgement on a group and in a another you are simply acknowledging your own status.

[nothumb]

Thanks for all the responses. As you may have guessed question was largely rhetorical in nature. One underlying point of this question was actually - even more so than 'how do we achieve tolerance - "Is tolerance truly a virtue?"

Not because I necessarily believe otherwise but because those who say yes may not remember why.

I am also waiting for the response of some well-known 'liberals' on this forum. This question was an alley-oop for political conservatives, obviously, but I think the left has some valid points to make here. Conservative or classical realist foreign policy is more consistent in terms of who it tolerates and does not (though it tolerates fewer people, it also posesses a far greater moral clarity than some of our other policy influences.) But it has its pitfalls as well.

NT

[nothumb]

And one more thing. There is an anti-educational bent in some responses to this thread. Now, if you take 'education' to mean not 'went to an American college,' but rather, simply, 'more well-versed in other cultures and knowledgable about other ways of life,' how does it change your response?

NT

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
Ultimate proof that education does not necessarily lead to tolerance is the "sharia"-schools in Pakistan. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously, I don't think tolerance is a product of education. I think it is a result of positive exposure to people with different mindsets. I.e., here in Norway you can feel racism in the countryside, but in the big cities where religions and nationalities are mixed there is much bigger tolerance.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I think educated people are better at "pretending" to be tolerant. They know they can push an agenda by acting tolerant while being terribly intolerant of groups they do not like (groups like religious people, capitalists, people with solid family values, and the middle class). It is phony tolerance for the most part, not real tolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Now we know how to take a total cheap shot when answering a complicated and nuanced question. I knew I could count on you.

NT

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It is worth thinking about what is intolerance.

A good example is homosexuality. I dont believe that homesexual are right



What is the difference between saying that "I dont belive that homosexual(s) are right" and saying that "I am not a homosexual". In one case you are denigrating and passing judgement on a group and in a another you are simply acknowledging your own status.

[/ QUOTE ]


AC,
Ugh, I cant edit that post, that shouldve read I dont believe homosexual acts are right . Does that make more sense?

I agree, however, that we probably need to more accurately define tolerance and intolerance for purposes of this discussion.

[ACPlayer]

I think this is very true.

I believe that Americans would benefit greatly from greater travel overseas. In my travels I have met many young Europeans and Aussies who spend weeks/months/years (years may be a bit too much!) backpacking around asia (specially). I suspect that this opens their minds up to the variety of the cultures yet the same basic humanity and needs that all people have.

I am always disappointed in the numbers of Americans backpacking. Even most adult Americans, that I know, travel overseas primarily to resorts designed to shield them from local cultures. Visiting Club Med in Jamaica is not visiting Jamaica.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimate proof that education does not necessarily lead to tolerance is the "sharia"-schools in Pakistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence my caveat about what 'education' should be taken to mean.

But your post brings up an important point, which is that in many parts of the world, and even in Europe and America up until recently and in some parts to this day, education is a profoundly illiberal enterprise that does not tend to emphasize tolerance; however, it also does not pretend to.

This is where I expected liberals to jump in and point out that current educational models tend to teach us more about other cultures, and that one could argue that, at least when it comes to cultural sensitivity, modern Western students are more educated and more tolerant, providing at least some support for the idea that 'education' can increase tolerance.

However, the hard question is, are you more tolerant in only a superficial way, because it's a political talking point? Are you tolerant as a tourist, or as a citizen of the world? This is really a self-examination question for the political left, there is no need for conservatives to pile on here (just because I've set you up so well, I know it's hard not to).

Despite playing devil's advocate here I do believe there is a greater concern for the rest of the world as a whole among the political left in this country, though there are some gaping holes in the moral fabric of this compassion. Which makes it easier for conservatives to call crocodile tears. Conservative compassion, on the other hand, is usually directed either inward to our own people or outward to those who share our principles. And by this I mean truly conservative, not of the opportunistic variety currently in the White House. Thus conservative compassion is more morally consistent and compelling, while the mish-mash, fuzzy-headed universalism of leftist compassion is often written off as a weakness of character, a general permissiveness and unwillingness to draw clear lines.

I've got to go to work now.

NT

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing. I think education can certainly be an enabler for tolerance. That is being well educated helps challenge your viewpoints. But education in and of itself doesnt make one tolerant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is pretty cogent; that is, knowledge/information probably generates higher levels of tolerance. Why?

It seems to me that intolerance is bred from fear/insecurity. Information is the best panacea to quell fear. Education develops a greater capacity to comprehend and internalize information. So if I were to draw a little diagram, it might look something like this:

Education creates a higher capacity to comprehend information ---->; Information is a remedy for fear ---->; Fear breeds intolerance

However, like vulturesrow said, tolerance is highly agent dependent, and no amount of information will overcome some people’s deep seated fears.

In regards to the OP:

[ QUOTE ]
So, this begs the question: is 'tolerance' (a virtue of so-called liberals in this country) a natural extension of education? Does it really result, empirically and demonstrably, from greater knowledge of the world surrounding us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would suspect it would be impossible to prove empirically that tolerance is a natural extension of education. Any study would have put parameters on the notion of tolerance.

As for your second question, I could probably produce anecdotal evidence that education produces tolerance. Locke was a strong proponent that our personal experiences could constitute strong empirical evidence. However, I suppose some would object to using anecdotal evidence as empirical evidence, and they’d be right to do so. So, while I personally believe tolerance results from greater knowledge, I doubt I could satisfactorily prove it empirically.

[ QUOTE ]
Or does the near-left of higher ed attempt to essentialize education and its merits to include one of the pillars of its own political platform?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should hope that even the most ardent conservatives don’t view education as only having a singular merit. Considering ardent conservative’s continue to send their children/work at/teach at the institutions they so thoroughly deride (see the Ivy League), then I suspect their anti-intellectual rhetoric is more political than the left’s embrace of education (then again, I think almost everyone on the right embraces education too).

[ACPlayer]

How about "I dont believe Homosexual acts are right for me"

Not that I am qualified as an arbiter of tolerance. I am pretty intolerant about somethings.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

And one more thing. There is an anti-educational bent in some responses to this thread. Now, if you take 'education' to mean not 'went to an American college,' but rather, simply, 'more well-versed in other cultures and knowledgable about other ways of life,' how does it change your response?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that might help tend even more towards tolerance. I also think that probably there is a very loose correlation between tolerance and education (statistically speaking).

The reason I pointed out the sometimes intolerance of many leftists or in academia (intolerance for for other political ideologies, that is) was merely to partially counter your presupposition that tolerance is "a virtue of so-called liberals in this country".

I still believe, though, that the principal foundations for tolerance are: 1) a sense of empathy, and, 2) a philosophical willingness to accept/allow others to be different than one's self. I think these personal traits are more important to tolerance than education or being well-versed in other cultures, although I do think that education and exposure may help (just not to the same extent).

Tangential follows:

At the risk of repeating myself yet further and getting a bit more tangential I will elaborate that my own view of tolerance of other ways, cultures, etc. also hinges to large degree on whether those other ways are seriously harmful or abusive to others.

Locally, I would support the right of a parent to say whatever he likes to anyone else, but not to beat his child with a baseball bat. Regionally, I would draw the line at what constitute serious human or civil rights abuses (such as the way women are treated in many Middle Eastern countries. So-called "honor-killings" are not something that should just be accepted because it is "their way"--the victims of these killings ought to have human rights too).

So, I don't think tolerance should extend completely to when some abuse others severely or strip them of what should be their basic human rights. Again, it all revolves around the principle that whatever someone else does is "OK by me" as long as they aren't harming others. And I'm willing to tolerate just about anything in another as long as that person (or system, or culture) isn't severely abusing others.

From this you can see, though, that I don't completely agree with the standard multicultural dogma. In fact I see no way to reconcile the adoption of the dogma of complete multicultural equality with the principle of human rights. And if push comes to shove I'd have to say that human rights are more important. All cultures aren't equal if certain cultures systematically commit human rights abuses to a much greater extent. That however is not to say that there aren't some valuable or precious aspects to every culture--I believe every culture does have some great and unique qualities. I just consider systematic human rights abuses, and deprivations of basic civil rights, to be huge negatives in any culture or political system in which it is found. Therefore you might say that while the West still embraced slavery, the culture of the West and especially America was seriously defective at that time.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
I don't know how much Americans travel, but the trend here now is to go on holiday in Asia, Africa or Arab countries and I think it has helped a lot; however I think the 2nd generation of immigrants have had the biggest effect. They seem to have a foot in each camp and such become bridge builders.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
How about "I dont believe Homosexual acts are right for me"


[/ QUOTE ]

This is moral reletivism. If I said "I don't think murder is right," would you say that I should say instead "I don't think murder is right for me."?

If are saying this, you are letting the potential murderer decide whether or not his own actions are right.

If you are not saying this, then you are the one deciding when something is wrong for everybody and when something is only wrong for the person thinking about it. That is moral reletivism.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If you ask me, any act between two consenting adults that does not directly attack or defraud a third party is not wrong. Outside the norm, perhaps, but not wrong.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please explain to me how two consenting adults having sex is in any way analogous to murder? I'd say you exhibit moral mendacity.

[ACPlayer]

Equating a homosexual act between consenting adults and murder is typical idiocy.

I will leave it up to you to figure out why.

[Broken Glass Can]

It is not about murder. It is about who decides what is moral and what is not, and whether they must limit that decision to their own actions or may decide for everyone. You have avoided explaining why you think you can decide whether morality applies universally or individually as you did in your earlier post.

[Broken Glass Can]

I didn't compare the two. Reread my post and answer the question instead of deliberately taking this off topic. Why would you take it off topic unless you can't answer the question: who decides whether a moral issue is universal or individual specific?

[ACPlayer]

The morality of my behaviours are my business. The morality of your behaviour is your business.

When your behaviour impinges on my rights, in some instances, society may take action against you. That is about public policy and not about morality. Society should be punishing murder not because it view murder as immoral (that is between the murder and his concept of god, if any) but as a way to maintain order in society.

Regarding homosexuality. I dont mind if Vulturesrow is not homosexual - I am not so I guess we are alike in that sense. I suggested to him, that perhaps a way of thinking about it is to relate the homosexual acts and its morality to himself and not pass judgement, as he is not hurt by others who choose to perform these acts. In his view of the universe that judgement will happen on the way to heaven.

I dont decide to whom morality applies. I leave that to the Christian Right they do it with a vengence. I can only offer my opinions.

[lehighguy]

I don't think it was right for my friend to cheat on thier SO. I can still think it's wrong and not force my believe on my friend.

[lehighguy]

You've essentially answered his question:

"When your behaviour impinges on my rights, in some instances, society may take action against you. That is about public policy and not about morality. Society should be punishing murder not because it view murder as immoral (that is between the murder and his concept of god, if any) but as a way to maintain order in society."

This is in essence the morally relative opinion (one I share). However, moral relativism opens up a whole can of worms:

If public policy is determined by public good and maintaining order, why bother protecting minority rights. If there is no moral reason to then as long as I can argue that a policy can benefit "most" people then it will be implemented without regards to the the rights of a minority. In fact, under moral relativism there are no such things as "rights" because there are no inalliable truths.

Take free speech during time of war. I could argue that media should not criticize the government during time of war because it weakens the war effort and is bad for the country. There is no real public policy defense against such an arguement. The only defense is that we have a RIGHT to free speech. We believe in that right because we believe it is a fundamental truth. But fundamental truths and moral relativism don't go togethor.

Most liberal cases tend to fall by the wayside when viewed through moral relativism. For instance, there is no standing public policy reason for most government wealth redistribution programs. They are a drag on the economy. They are only justified through a moral frameowrk whereby we are suppose to help the poor. Without morality, there is no reason to have them.

[vulturesrow]

Without going off into the moral relativism issue, since other have done that, let me say this. We still havent defined tolerance/intolerance. We judge people every day, on an instaneous basis, on a wide variety things. Does that make us all intolerant? Yes I am passing judgement, but am I being intolerant? Is intolerance always a bad thing?

Frankly we are throwing around a term pretty loosely which no party to this discussion has defined yet.

[ACPlayer]

Fundamental rights are something our society decided to implement to build a nation under one vision (a fairly decent one) of what a nation should be. The fundamental rights are not necessarily based on morality but on what society should be about and the basis for the laws when these rights are impinged.

Protecting minority rights is something we again should be deciding because that is consistent with the vision of our society not because it the moral thing to do. Fortunately in our society the rights are universal and apply to the minority. THis means that when implementing policy you cannot ignore the rights of the minority.

Similarly free speech is a right that is part of the vision of our society. Ergo, laws to limit free speech for any reason, violate not morality, but our vision (the constitution).

It is why we should be outraged when the Christian Right tries to enforce its morality on us.

Living by principles with, preferably, no exception leads to a good life and a good society.

Now if I could only lead a principled life, but the hot dealer last night has led me to immoral thoughts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

Want to take a stab at it?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly we are throwing around a term pretty loosely which no party to this discussion has defined yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll make an attempt:
"Accepting that other individuals have different genetics and experiences than you, and thus have values you don't have and conduct actions that you would not conduct."

[vulturesrow]

Arfinn,

Decent, but I think the definition needs to include some mention of your actions. I think your definition might be a bit too broad (and wordy /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) .

How about:

How about

"Treating other humans as equals regardless of their background, experience, or genetics?"

Its not quite what I want to say but close..Anyone else?

[ACPlayer]

How about actions? That is consider others as equal regardless of what they do and not just their background etc.

To consider a murderer to be equal in your eyes to Mother Theresa. Perhaps not in the eyes of St Peter (if I have my saints right here) at the pearly gates.

[Broken Glass Can]

from dictionary.com "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

The key word here (missing in the definitions offered so far) is "respect", and that is the key. We can all acknowledge differences, but do we respect those who are different or have different views? And when is it proper to not respect different views, because those views are unacceptable?

Must we respect Nazis? Communists? Pedophiles? Where do we draw the line?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
" Accepting other humans as equals regardless of their background, experience, or genetics?"

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, you can not treat orthodox moslems as you would with your friends, as they could be offended.

[lehighguy]

Vision/Principles = Morality
Your just using a different word to symbolize the same idea:
We believe in free speech because we believe it is a right of the individual. In order for it to be a right then there must be truth behind it. In order for there to be truth there must be right (truth) and wrong (untruth). This seems a fairly simple premise to me.

If your argueing that there are no truths, that our rules and laws are based on what we see fit at the time, then what the Nazi's did isn't wrong, it was simply thier vision for thier society.

There are important philisophical implications here. To simply say there is no truth begins a slippery slope. To believe that there is truth, but that you either don't understand it or have the right to enforce it is another.

[lehighguy]

I draw the line at when someones believes adversely effect another without thier consent. Usually the bar I set for "adversely effect" is physical violence. That's a short definition.

I'd also say accept and acknowledge are different. I know people that would sell thier best friend for a dollar. I can acknowledge that that's thier belief system, but I don't have to respect it.

[ACPlayer]

We believe it is a Right of the individual. That does not make it right. In our vision, as presently interpreted by some, a non-citizen living in say Iraq, does not have the same Rights that you have. The so-called Right to bear arms is one example. If this was a true moral issue you should be up in arms about it.

The Rights you have a citizen of the US are based not on morality but on our view of what a society should be.

Regarding Nazism. The biggest problem from my perspective are two fold: one they impinged on the the Jewish people and they invaded their neighbours. Note that no one took action on the first, but the world community -- in order to protect the world communities view of mainting the world order reacted to punish the Germans. This is entirely consistent.

And yes, the Nazi's did what was consisted with their vision of societies. If Hitler had not prematurely turned against Russia, who knows perhaps the world would have been a better place. I dont think so, but does not mean that it would not have been.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If I said "I don't think murder is right," would you say that I should say instead "I don't think murder is right for me."?


Of course not. That absolutely is moral relativism. However, your reply was to a discussion about a topic far different than muder.

And it is you who took this off topic. IIRC, the initial discussion had nothing to do with murder. Intentionally or not, you implied some sort of equivalence between murder and homosexuality.

[kevyk]

A rights-based, Libertarian ideology preserves both tolerance and an absolute concept of right and wrong.

If I have a certain set of political rights, the definition of "wrong" is simply actions which impinge upon those rights. No appeal to the public good is needed.

Murder denies me my right to not be killed. Homosexuality, while offending the sensibilities of many, denies no one any fundamental right.

Dictatorships rob all of their citizens of political rights, and should be toppled if possible. Mistreatment of women in the Middle East and Africa is an assualt upon their unalienable rights and can be condemned. It is possible to cultivate a tolerant outlook without becoming a wishy-washy moral relativist.

[lehighguy]

If they are based on a view, not a truth, then they are transcetory, and are laws rather then rights. As such they can be taken away as pleased.

Your last comment was honest, at least you admit where you stand. Might makes right. I can respect that.

[vulturesrow]

Are you seriously claiming that the rights in the Constitution werent morally based?

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ring a bell? (Yes I know that came from the Declaration but I dont think one can say that these principles werent the drivers of the Constitution).

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
-- John Adams

[lehighguy]

Yes that's his claim.

It is the fundamental difference between your stance and his. Moreover, a fundamental philisophical divide in the country.

[ACPlayer]

Actually I am claiming that the Rights in the constitution dont have to be morally based and that not all may agree that they are moral. And further some may think that there are better ways to do things that are equally "moral" according to them. Remember that high IQ (I know some believe that makes their analysis correct/images/graemlins/grin.gif) individuals in the Islamic world view Sharia principles and practices as moral and necessary.

I think the framers did a good job per my particular world view. They made a few mistakes, but they were human and not God.

I further believe that the basic Rights that they listed should be universally applied by our govt for allpeople and not just US citizens. But I am sure the Xenophobes (at least) will disagree. It is also impractical at this time. However, note that the Set of people who have the Rights that the framers put together has expanded to include Slaves, Women etc. Eventually, I hope there will be a world view. But that is a utopian digression.

[lehighguy]

I think that's what I said.

You must realize however that in the world you've laid out power is the only componet that matters.

[ACPlayer]

Not if you realize that enforcing your morality is (the only?) truly immoral thing to do.

[lehighguy]

If you don't believe in truth, then you only believe in opinion. If its all about opinion you can do as you please.

For instance, let's say your a Jew in 1940. Nazi's come to your house and kill you. If you believe in truth, you die knowing they are wrong and your death is tragic. If you don't believe in truth they could be just as right as you are and your death is meaningless. All that matters is who has the power to enforce thier vision. Under your hypothesis we live in the society we live in because those in power see fit for us to live that way. If tommorrow Bush disbanded Congress and declared marshall law you couldn't say he was doing a bad thing, only enacting his vision. Just as you try to enact your vision everyday by your actions. We're all just trying to enact our visions and whoever has the most power wins. That's what a world without fundamental truths is about.

You seem to be making a typical error. Your thinking about politics first and philosophy second, even though the latter is the foundation of the former. Politics is merely the enactment of our philisophical believes. If you don't have core philisophical believes then you are merely advocating policies which aren't linked togethor and are enacted for transitory reasons. You started out with an objective, keep the religous right from telling you want to do, and then made up whatever philisophical foundation you thought you needed to justify that objective. That's why the foundation is shaky. It's why liberalism has become so fragmented and weak in this country, because it tried to build its views from the top down instead of the bottom up.

You can't have beliefs without believing thier correct. You don't have an opinion that 2+2 = 4. You know 2+2 = 4. If you don't believe your own beliefs are true that you don't really believe in them at all.

Look I'm a moral relativist too. I don't think anything we do matters. I think its all about doing what you want to do. But I understand all of the sad implications that brings. Your preverting the concept of moral relativity to justify an objective and not really understanding it.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]

If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

those who do the educating would like you to belive that leftist views include more tolerance for difference. such is not the case at all.

both sides are highly intolerant. one of non-conforming actions, the other of non-conforming thoughts.

the real question is "why is tolerance looked upon as a good thing?"

I for one certainly see it as the greatest of evils W/R to many world issues right now...

fim the intolerant

[BadBoyBenny]

To me being tolerant of something or someone is just putting up with them and not bugging them. In some ways tolerance is just politeness, and educated people tend to have better manners. Acceptance is much more important than tolerance.

Anyways, a lack of knowledge can make some people less tolerant because knowledge replaces fear, and fear leads to intolerance.

However I don't think that education necessarily makes people more acceptant. I think rich (and thus with access to better education) people have their own kinds of elitist unacceptance and intolerance. I also think that the is too much intellectual elitism in this country.

Poorer people and people who have never gone on to higher education are also more likely to be the kind of people who have never left their hometown and thus have less diversified experiences to make them acceptant of other people's lifesyle. Different lifestyles can seem much more crazy when you can't attach it to someone who you know.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
To me being tolerant of something or someone is just putting up with them and not bugging them. In some ways tolerance is just politeness, and educated people tend to have better manners. Acceptance is much more important than tolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty insightful, IMO. Tolerance can, in some colloquial uses mean something rather pejorative. For instance, "the food wasn't great, but I tolerated it" could be construed to mean something like "I choked that nasty food down as best I could."

Perhaps we should reject tolerance as an admirable standard. If not reject, perhaps we could have loftier goals than mere tolerance.

Nice, thoughtful post.

[Dead]

I am quite liberal, as most of you know.

And I also know how liberal academia really is, because I am exposed to it every day.

But I do not think that liberals are necessarily more tolerant than conservatives. A lot of liberals look down on Southerners, for example.

I think that education is often used as a tool to beat people over the head with, and this is unfortunate.

Being highly educated does not make one tolerant. George Bush is highly educated, but he is not a tolerant person.

[nothumb]

I'm very happy with the responses to this thread, I honestly didn't expect it to get so many, and so many productive ones. So nice job guys, and thanks for your thoughts. I'm going to chime in with mine now that this discussion has mostly run its course.

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing. I think education can certainly be an enabler for tolerance. That is being well educated helps challenge your viewpoints. But education in and of itself doesnt make one tolerant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was one of the best and most important posts early in this thread. Many people become 'tolerant' insofar as they achieve an understanding of the common social scientific principle that all cultures are internally consistent. However, rather than use this information to look critically at what makes societies function and what beliefs are conducive to a happy, productive society, people believe it forbids them to make moral, ethical or even practical critiques of other cultures. The doctrine of cultural relativism merely strips them of any shock or indignation they might have at strange or potentially harmful foreign institutions or customs, rather than preparing them to look at those customs with a greater degree of perspective and rationality.

In short, I do NOT believe that having a background in political and social sciences should make one hesitant to critically examine other cultures. I think the social science curriculum at many liberal arts institutions has the potential to be EXCELLENT, and many post-structural critiques of power and statism are very useful - but not when they paralyze our real-world critical faculties.

I want to return to the question, WHY is tolerance a good thing? Tolerance as an extension of general human compassion, as a universal principle based on the fundamental similarities we posess as human beings, is not productive or morally consistent. It reflects the same fuzzy thinking I discussed above in the social sciences; understanding we are similar and therefore avoiding conflict or criticism. Even worse, if tolerance is an extension of one's aversion to violence, it is even more fawning and toothless than before, often verging on recklessness. Tolerance as an extension of cowardice is the worst form.

The INSTINCT towards tolerance as a first reaction is good because it is socially productive, spiritually healthy and cost-effective. We all know that violence and coercion are often the most expensive and inefficient ways to solve disputes, war being the most extreme example. Now, these avenues are not always avoidable, but many needless wars over history could have been avoided if the first reaction of a few individuals was curiosity rather than warmongering, fellowship rather than greed. Tolerance is not something we should extend universally, but as a primary reaction it is often far more desirable. And certainly, when we look at it domestically rather than internationally, the benefits of a more tolerant populace are even easier to see. How often has the political process been poisoned by opportunistic, divisive rhetoric, to which a more tolerant, informed populace would be far less susceptible?

So, very generally speaking, compassion for others is something we can apply universally; tolerance is not. I refer you to this excellent tidbit from M:

[ QUOTE ]
From this you can see, though, that I don't completely agree with the standard multicultural dogma. In fact I see no way to reconcile the adoption of the dogma of complete multicultural equality with the principle of human rights. And if push comes to shove I'd have to say that human rights are more important. All cultures aren't equal if certain cultures systematically commit human rights abuses to a much greater extent. That however is not to say that there aren't some valuable or precious aspects to every culture--I believe every culture does have some great and unique qualities. I just consider systematic human rights abuses, and deprivations of basic civil rights, to be huge negatives in any culture or political system in which it is found. Therefore you might say that while the West still embraced slavery, the culture of the West and especially America was seriously defective at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The language of my description of the virtues of tolerance sounds similar to that posed by AC_Player when he attempts to separate morality from public policy. However, this is not my intent.

[ QUOTE ]
That is about public policy and not about morality. Society should be punishing murder not because it view murder as immoral (that is between the murder and his concept of god, if any) but as a way to maintain order in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Protecting minority rights is something we again should be deciding because that is consistent with the vision of our society not because it the moral thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I am claiming that the Rights in the constitution dont have to be morally based and that not all may agree that they are moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these quotes are horribly, horribly off base when it comes to what really makes society coherent. To break it down to the plainest possible terms, morality should be made up of statements of value about the world - what we think is important and good, or not. Laws are statements of value about social organization - they reflect the most basic principles shared by the vast majority of society that permit us to live together. They are statements of value that clearly delineate what is acceptable and what is not. The ultimate point is that the law should reflect the very bedrock of our shared morality - not the totality of it, but the most important parts. The trick with law and society is not to divorce morality from policy, but rather to include only so much morality as is necessary to live peacefully and productively together. This is because morals vary greatly within even a small group of people, and attempting to legislate all morality is an impossible task. A good form of social organization draws upon only the most basic shared morals of a society, and does not include those values about which we can respectfully disagree, while still living together.

So the left does have a point when it complains that opportunistic Republicans attempt to 'legislate morality,' - not because doing so is impossible, but because legislating TOO MUCH morality can cause a whole social organization to implode.

What seems to have happened to liberalism in this country is that, somewhere along the way, it moved beyond valuing the rights of an individual insofar as they protect her ability to remain autonomous, morally independent and 'free.' We now believe that what makes people happy is not the opportunity to pursue their goals in a society where we have the freedom to make critical decisions about ourselves and our beliefs, but rather the opportunity to act however they please, feel as they wish and make NO critical inquiries into themselves, their way of life or their actions! . What we must understand is that freedom comes from a nuanced, moral autonomy, a rigorous authorship of belief and action, as much as it comes from the capacity to perform that action. In some ways a person who is psychologically free and morally autonomous is happier, or at least more content, than a person who is morally witless but physically free. Certainly the emotional traumas of the latter are far more twisted and run far deeper.

I am so critical of the left and its lack of clarity because I am ardently leftist and the American left is killing itself. Thanks for reading.

NT

[vulturesrow]

NT,

Awesome post and good idea for a thread. Looking forward to more.

[nothumb]

BTW I wasn't trying to close the thread, just sum things up. I know that was feckin LOOOONG.

NT

[lehighguy]

Very good post

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What seems to have happened to liberalism in this country is that, somewhere along the way, it moved beyond valuing the rights of an individual insofar as they protect her ability to remain autonomous, morally independent and 'free.' We now believe that what makes people happy is not the opportunity to pursue their goals in a society where we have the freedom to make critical decisions about ourselves and our beliefs, but rather the opportunity to act however they please, feel as they wish and make NO critical inquiries into themselves, their way of life or their actions! . What we must understand is that freedom comes from a nuanced, moral autonomy, a rigorous authorship of belief and action, as much as it comes from the capacity to perform that action. In some ways a person who is psychologically free and morally autonomous is happier, or at least more content, than a person who is morally witless but physically free. Certainly the emotional traumas of the latter are far more twisted and run far deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me say that the depth of your posts is refreshing. Your noting that law making is frequently a process of moral codification is often overlooked. A few days ago, there were a flurry of posts regarding the death penalty and it’s possible justification. Few saw the wisdom of how laws/punishments can be society’s best tools in making collective statements about values and morals. IMO, jurisprudence can’t be studied correctly without this notion and yet it so frequently gets dismissed thoroughly (and yes, it seems anecdotally that, more often than not, it's leftists doing the dismissing).

Onto my critique, though:

I believe the left makes moral critiques all the time. And they frequently get unfairly labeled because of it. When the left critiques rap music for it’s misogynistic tone, they get political correctness charges thrown back at them. When the left critiques the banking/credit industry for predatory lending, they’re called socialists. When the left critiques the use of torture, they’re charged with not having the proper wherewithal to fight the war on terror.

Should the left disavow itself of a culture that frequently finds itself devoid of any moral boundaries? Of course. But its critiques of such a culture are frequently shouted down; the right can have comparable complaints. For instance, the pro-life movement’s genuine concern for the protection of life gets shouted down by leftists who label the right as being anti women/choice, and it's similarly unfair.

It seem to me that there might be two, loose conceptions of tolerance here. One, you rightly point out, isn’t necessarily ideal. This conception of tolerance is meant to turn the other cheek to what we should all agree is universally immoral behavior. Even if a certain actor, belief, or action is of the most reprehensible nature, we ought not to critique it out of adherence to tolerance. I reject this conception of tolerance firmly.

But there is another conception of tolerance that we ought not to hold as ideal, but could be an acceptable alternative among worse options that are more frequently exercised, and that is:

appealing to ‘tolerance’ as something synonymous to a reduction of incendiary rhetoric. Frequently, when we demand tolerance from our opponents, we don’t necessarily mean they should accept something that offends their morality; we’re asking for them to stop interjecting needless emotion into a debate. For example:

When Jerry Falwell accuses gays/lesbians for 'helping' September 11th happen, (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/) we might demand Falwell to be more tolerant.

And I think when some on the left call for Falwell to be tolerant, they’re not asking him to like homosexuals, or to accept them as moral, or even to stop criticizing homosexual lifestyle (even if they think he’s wrong).

What they’re asking for from Falwell, when they demand him to be tolerant, is for Falwell to bring to an end demagoguery; to remove emotion from the debate, where emotion’s singular purpose is to elicit anger and frustration. That is, they’re asking Falwell not to be angry(and I'm not referring to righteous anger). In this sense, tolerance is merely a request to return to rational debate, away from anger, destructive emotions, pernicious fears and demagoguery. When liberals demand tolerance from society, using this conception, it’s in a similar vein. They’re hoping for a public discourse that shuns a reliance on prejudices and embraces prudence and discretion in rhetoric. I think the right has a similar goal in mind when they demand tolerance for the views of conservative Christians.

We ought to disagree, and disagree strongly, in the strongest terms possible. But we disagree with respect and dignity for our opponents.

This conception of tolerance isn’t conflict avoidance. The left isn’t asking Falwell to stop vigorously debating the harms/benefits of the homosexual lifestyle. I assume those on the left who support gay rights welcome such a debate. It’s simply a request to have a debate full of vivid ideas, colorful language, strong disagreements, and most of all, civilized discourse. We ought to have monumental conflicts that shape the future in the most substantive ways possible. And conflict, I believe, is not mutually exclusive with this conception of tolerance.

This isn’t a condemnation of the right. It’s not meant to label the right as relying on anger, fear, and emotion to make their case. Bitter partisanship and intense political competition have led to far too much anger from both sides, and the left is just as guilty at appealing to fear and anger.

I admit I'm taking alot of liberties here with how we should define tolerance. But I believe that, when we flush out of what some people truly want when they demand tolerance, it sheds some light on how we can continue to see tolerance as something virtuous.

[ACPlayer]

Nazi's come to your house and kill you. If you believe in truth, you die knowing they are wrong and your death is tragic. If you don't believe in truth they could be just as right as you are and your death is meaningless.

The important thing for the Jew in this example is that he is DEAD. That is the only truth at this point. The death is meaningless to all except the friends and family, as are all deaths.

You started out with an objective, keep the religous right from telling you want to do, and then made up whatever philisophical foundation you thought you needed to justify that objective.

THat the religious right is wrong in telling me to what to do follows from my argument. It is not the assumption in the argument. In fact my line of thinking shows the bankruptcy of all religions as they all try to enforce their view of morality and behaviours on others.

You don't have an opinion that 2+2 = 4.

Actually 2+2 is 100 and not 4. Or perhaps it is 11. All these answers are correct. Do you see why this is and why understanding this is key to understanding logical thinking. I dont want anyone telling me how to think of 2+2. However if I want to communicate that we have to agree on the representation of 2+2.

[ACPlayer]

Great post thank you.

We actually agree a lot more than you may think.

Laws are statements of value about social organization - they reflect the most basic principles shared by the vast majority of society that permit us to live together.

THis is entirely consistent with my view point. The laws of our society reflect the principles of our society, our vision in my posts.

However, I still disagree that these principles are an absolute morality. THat view point is a form of hubris and arrogance. Different societies agree on a different set of principles. They view some of ours as immoral and wrong as we view theirs.

For example I could argue that our society would be better off with highly curtailed "rights to bear arms". That the ownership of guns is immoral. I do however accept that to live in this society I will live by the laws that govern it, regardless of my personal views of "morality".

Regarding M's view about human rights. Note that many people consider American death penalty to be a gross violation of human rights. Others think that self serving capitalism is immoral and inhumane. These are all valid viewpoints, though you and I may believe otherwise.

Morality and societal norms are relative. There are no absolutes and it is better than way. Tolerance of other societies, like tolerance of other individuals must be consistent with this viewpoint.

[lehighguy]

You missed the point of his post, read it again.

[ACPlayer]

Perhsp, but I dont think so.

I read his post to imply that laws and society are made from some sone universal standard of morality. THat is simply not correct and is an inappropriate view. All moral questions are subject to interpretation.

[lehighguy]

I think you understand it very well up until this paragraph.

"What seems to have happened to liberalism in this country is that, somewhere along the way, it moved beyond valuing the rights of an individual insofar as they protect her ability to remain autonomous, morally independent and 'free.' We now believe that what makes people happy is not the opportunity to pursue their goals in a society where we have the freedom to make critical decisions about ourselves and our beliefs, but rather the opportunity to act however they please, feel as they wish and make NO critical inquiries into themselves, their way of life or their actions! . What we must understand is that freedom comes from a nuanced, moral autonomy, a rigorous authorship of belief and action, as much as it comes from the capacity to perform that action. In some ways a person who is psychologically free and morally autonomous is happier, or at least more content, than a person who is morally witless but physically free. Certainly the emotional traumas of the latter are far more twisted and run far deeper.

I am so critical of the left and its lack of clarity because I am ardently leftist and the American left is killing itself. Thanks for reading."

[ACPlayer]

I am happy with that paragragh as it applies to individuals within a society. I disagree, and perhape I misunderstood the author, in that our "moral, nuanced autonomy, a regorous authorship of believe and action" means that our societies belief and action must be the correct way and actions.

We can and must have our values, we should not, nay must not, impose our values on those that are not part of us. This applies between individuals (within the framework of the agreed to laws) and between scoieties (within the framework of agreed to international laws).

The Author disagreed with me when I pointed out that ours is but one framework that is moral. Furhter our framework, or elements of our framework, may well be considered immoral by others who believe that theirs is moral. This is as it should be.

[vulturesrow]

This:

[ QUOTE ]
Morality and societal norms are relative. There are no absolutes and it is better than way. Tolerance of other societies, like tolerance of other individuals must be consistent with this viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this:

[ QUOTE ]
I further believe that the basic Rights that they listed should be universally applied by our govt for allpeople and not just US citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont go together. Do you see why?

[ACPlayer]

No, I think they are consistent.

We should consider all individuals, regardless of residence to be worthy of the statement "all men are created equal". Note that it does not say "all American men (and women) are created equal". So our view and treatment of individuals should be that they are as equal as a citizen. When that individual comes in contact with us (whether as a visitor or as a terrorist) we should treat him like we would treat a citizen (including how we treat a criminal). Note that Guantanamo clearly violates this precept and why I find it outrageous.

It does not mean that the foreign individual must be treated by his society the way we treat our citizen. Just as I dont want others aggressively telling us how to treat our citizen. I dont mind advice on how we should treat out citizens or suggestions as we are of course open to ideas.

You and I may consider, that it is best that other societies absorb our way of life. I think it is a terrible idea (not because I think our way of life is terrible) but becuase it precludes the possibility of evolution of an even better way of life. That better way of life does not have to evolve out of our way of life.

THis is the danger of using the word and thinking of our laws as based on moral principles. The word moral implies that our way is only way. It is intolerant of other interpretations.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
We should consider all individuals, regardless of residence to be worthy of the statement "all men are created equal".

[/ QUOTE ]

If morals are relative than this statement has no meaning.

[nothumb]

Hi AC -

My point about laws as a most basic layer of morality is not that they are universal, but that they are shared by nearly all members of the society to which they apply. These basic laws are not shared visions that grow from the different moral values of individuals; rather, they are at the core of everyone's basic beliefs as they are raised in this society. Some people deviate from that, but it's the starting point.

I understand your quibbling with morality vs. policy. You understand that morality is a social construct and that absolute morality at this point has not been discovered, nor is it likely to be. I agree with you. However, one cannot talk about politics without talking about morals, and one certainly can't hope to galvanize a population to govern itself speaking in abstract terms about vision and policy. Principles energize and help to organize a population.

NT

[ACPlayer]

Why?

First I dont say that morals are relative. I say that morals are personal.

Second, I say that agreed to societal principles are above individual morals when we live in that society. I also say that when we start considering societal principles to be moral we start down the dangerous path of Right telling us what is right. Better to think of our laws as not based on morality. A bit of semantics with a purpose.

Third, I say that societal principals are personal (in a societal sense) to individual societies.

Now, I say that in our society, the people in our society and those individuals who come in contact with our society should be treated according to one of the most fundamental statements of our society: All persons are created equal.

Whats the problem?

[nothumb]

Hi DVaut -

You make some excellent points. I think part of the reason the left is criticized when they make 'moral' arguments like the one you describe is that those principles are not quite so deep in the core of a society as perhaps they should be. Another reason is that people (sometimes correctly) feel the left is quicker to show compassion and tolerance for those who have done nothing to earn or deserve either. Now, that is also a carefully constructed myth of the radical right, but it's what the left needs to overcome right now and a lot of people believe it.

As far as your idea of tolerance as rationality and good public debate, it's on the mark. What Falwell does is not merely expose his own intolerance, but appeal, systematically and whorishly, to the intolerance of others. Which is why I think tolerance as a primary reaction is so important; there will always be demagogues, opportunists, etc. And it's certainly not easy, but the best we can hope to do is turn at least some people away from that crass type of appeal to the public.

Gotta go to work now

NT

[vulturesrow]

Check where I quoted you a few posts above. Maybe I misunderstood you. At any rate, I dont see how you can say that societal principles arent moral. If you read the writings of the founding fathers (and I am pretty sure you have) it is seems clear to me that the Constitution is a codification of moral principles that they believed were inherent to human beings. Shall I start now drifting off into natural law theory as well? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ACPlayer]

Politics comes from the fact that our individual morals are not shared by all members of the society. We agree to live by the rules of the society and the consequences of our actions. We do not accept the morals of the others as our own.

We bicker over death penalty, evolution, abortion etc because precisely because we dont share individual morals.

The use of the word morals -- as in this is the moral thing to do -- implies that if you dont agree with my position you are immoral. THis is where both the left and right are guilty. I prefer to use the word principles as that does not imply a judgement.

[lehighguy]

The author beliefs in belief though. You believe what you believe because its the right thing.

That believe is the sort of thing that tells us we should stop genocide even if it is far away and doesn't effect us. We do it because its the right thing to do, not the most convienient thing for our society.

[lehighguy]

Think about it from the concept of truth.

When you make a statement:
"All men are created equal" you are stating that this is a TRUTH. Morals are what you believe to be the truth. If for instance, the statement you used is what you believe to be the truth, then that is a statement of your moral believes.

So either you believe that, "all men are created equal" is a truth that spans all cultures, or you don't believe it's a truth at all, but merely a concept we have for keeping order that can be discarded if people no longer find it useful.

[ACPlayer]

I am having hard time following your sentence construction in the first paragraph.

If you mean that people disagree with me. I already know that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The basic attitude that we should stop genocide by force (or other "immorality") even if it is far away is what leads to crusades and jihads. And makes us no better than the Mullahs. Feel free to fight oppression over seas by 1) contributing to Amnesty or other intl organizations 2) writing about it in journals 3) providing support for grassroots opposition organizations in that country.

[ACPlayer]

What I said was all men are created equal is a principle that we have agreed to follow in our society and we should apply it to all men. I dont say it is a TRUTH.

Incidentally, this is a very tolerant and powerful principle. I dont wish to discard it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic attitude that we should stop genocide by force (or other "immorality") even if it is far away is what leads to crusades and jihads. And makes us no better than the Mullahs.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a blanket statement, I highly disagree.

If the U.S. had not been attacked, do you think it would have been wrong to use force to stop the Nazis from exterminating the Jews? Apparently, you do think that. If you don't please clarify.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually 2+2 is 100 and not 4. Or perhaps it is 11. All these answers are correct. Do you see why this is and why understanding this is key to understanding logical thinking. I dont want anyone telling me how to think of 2+2. However if I want to communicate that we have to agree on the representation of 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

2+2=4 regardless of whether or not you think it does. The Earth is spherical rather than flat regardless of whether or not you believe it is.

Unless you agree that at least some things have a definitive truth value (1 or 0) regardless of your beliefs, you are perceiving reality very inaccurately.

You have the right to believe whatever you like about what 2+2 =. However that is tantamount to saying you have the right to hold WRONG beliefs and conceptions. What you need to realize is that some things absolutely are right or wrong (which I'm not using to claim that your political beliefs are wrong; just that you are wrong if you do not acknowledge that some things are objectively true or false regardless of your beliefs).

[ACPlayer]

Pehaps a refresher in mathematics is in order.

2+2=100 in base 2. The binary system of representation
2+2=11 in base 3.
2+2=4 only in base 10. The system you and I have agreed to communicate.

I know people (back when computers were programmed at a lower level) who seemed to do everything in octal or hexadecimal.

I think the analogy is apt and obvious.

[ACPlayer]

I am not sure what you mean by a blanket statement.

As a principle (I used the words "basic attitude") of spreading ones world view by force the concept to invading a country to spread our view to others is analogous to the view of Mullah who uses force to spread his world view.

Both methods are highly intolerant, both may be well intentioned in their own way. But good intentione can be the way to hell.

We do have a mechanism of world order, love it or hate it. It is the United Nations. By joining that body we agreed to abide by its world view in our dealings. So, at the moment in conflicts within the USA we go to the cops or the feds or the courts == for conflicts between countries we go to the UN, The WTO, International Courts or other such bodies.

[MMMMMM]

Hard to believe that that is entirely what you had in mind when you wrote your post, or that you were not implying other meanings as well, given the overall context of your remarks.

If that was the primary point you wished to make then it bears weak relevance to this thread and I have no argument with it.

[lehighguy]

Ugh, I'll leave this to others, have fun with that bag of worms, got class.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is worth thinking about what is intolerance.

A good example is homosexuality. I dont believe that homesexual are right



What is the difference between saying that "I dont belive that homosexual(s) are right" and saying that "I am not a homosexual". In one case you are denigrating and passing judgement on a group and in a another you are simply acknowledging your own status.

[/ QUOTE ]


AC,
Ugh, I cant edit that post, that shouldve read I dont believe homosexual acts are right . Does that make more sense?

I agree, however, that we probably need to more accurately define tolerance and intolerance for purposes of this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion needs to be framed in terms of tolerance, acceptance, and approval.

I accept that some people are homosexual.
I am tolerant of their lifestyle.
I do not approve of it, nor should I be forced to.

[CHiPS]

To reply to the original post a few points:

I believe that part of a good "liberal arts" education should be to expose the student to many different fields of study and ways of looking at things. If this is done, education can lay the groundwork for more tolerance. Even though I was a physics major in college, I studied art history and took a trip to Italy with the art majors - great learning experience for how people live and think in other parts of the world and in the past (plus the artsy girls were more fun). So I like the liberal arts education for this reason.
I would say though that there are many other factors that impact tolerance that can override education.
On the subject of "liberals" in the political sense and education level / academics I think a distinction is appropriate. If you are a professor of English at Harvard University, or a lawyer in a Boston law firm most of the intellectual and educated people around you are liberals and have a certain definition of tolerance that tends toward political correctness. Since most of the people with college degrees around you percieve tolerance in this way, that view of things is considered the result of education.
Now if you work for a corporation, work as an engineer and live in Texas the story is different. Now most of the engineers you work with who have college degrees are not liberals, they are more conservative politically. Now you may percieve the "pollitically correct" definition of tolerance as the snobish fad of those northeasterners.
Now at the poker table tolerance means we do not want anyone telling us that gambling is morally wrong, because after all we are diciplined good gamblers just having fun, very tolerant people, making money, smoking - oops not smoking cigars anymore - that's not tolerated at the tables anymore - well you get the picture.
But to the wife whose husband has busted out at the poker tables from a gambling addiction, the issue is not at all one of tolerance.
So here's the point - a person's peception and definition of what it means to be "tolerant" depends on education, but also their environment - what the majority of those around them tolerate or do not tolerate - and on their personal experiences.
Also, more educated people are not necessarily more liberal. This is another topic, but if you look at elections since the 80's overall people with college degrees vote more Republican than Democrat. Democrats usually win big among high school dropouts. Among people with advanced degrees its usually a more even split, depending on which election you talk about, with academics + laywers going towards Democrats and Corporate folks and engineers going more Republican. The most recent presidential election showed some different trends than previous elections, but I believe my summary is fair looking over the last 20 years. However - I believe that a high school dropout tends to vote Democrat moreso because he may be out of a job and lives in the city. The college grad lives in the suburbs and makes a good salary so that why he's voting Republican. So its economics and city vs suburbs more than intelligence that drives that part of the distribution. As an aside - City dwelling builds tolerance in a real sense. Now for the academics/lawyers vs corporate/engineers - it's theoretical thinkers and artistically creative people vs black and white thinkers and scientifically creative people. OK - huge generalizations here, but I think averaged over millions of people that's how it washes out. Individual variances are of course high, and perceptions of anyone who has not left Boston or Houston within the last 5 years will be skewed.
I have the advantage of being in Florida which is sometimes blue, the next moment red, sometimes purple and where all the big bucks are spent for the national campaigns. But I'm from Boston originally and worked with some of those lawyers - oh also the absurd length of winter does distort the thinking of people in Boston. Anyone who would tolerate living in a place where it snows in April must be very tolerant indeed.