Conceding Non-Consensus

[goat starer]

There seems to me to have never been a consensus on harm/ethics at any given point in history even within fairly homogenous cultures/groups (let alone across cultural divides). The old argument about objective v subjective ethics (Mackie - Ethics Inventing Right and Wrong is a good and accessible read on this). It strikes me that most major 'projects' in human history have been about trying to pin down and spread generally agreed principles on which we can cooperate (from the ten commandments to the current US administration via Marx, Hitler etc). These efforts always lack internal coherence simply because ethics is a product of our relationship with each other and our environment rather than a measurable 'fact'.

so where does that leave us? I dont believe in tolerating all diversity of opinion and action (and have never met anyone who did - perhaps that is the one constant!) but equally i tend to think that any attempt to impose (or even persuade) values on others is doomed to failure and often stinks of hypocracy.

So the Goat way is to tolerate what i can tolerate, challenge what i cant and accept that there is just the tiniest chance that i may be wrong.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The trick is relative harm and tolerable harm. We are talking gray areas in most cases, and those will always be relative to the conditions in which that harm is set. One example is TV: it can be harmful depending on a series of conditions but in most cases it will not be harmful or the level of harm that it may create is relatively low compared to other things, like alcohol which in turn can or cannot be harmful depending on... etc, etc.

Other example is more complicated, if a woman is considered property in other culture is it tolerable? Then -IMO- relative harm is not only related to the practice itself but to the actions against such practice; if in order to stop said belief I have to impose rules on millions of unwilling people, then the consequences of my intolerance may be intolerable.

It is a very thin line.

[Opsa]

Good points.

Part of what we're doing here is trying to promote religious tolerance (including atheism and agnosticism) because it seems that so much seriously damaging conflict in the world stems from a lack of tolerance for the otherwise harmless spiritual beliefs of others.

We are not tolerating oppression, aggression, or Brittany Spear's latest fiasco.

We are not saying we're all ready there, we 're saying we are attempting the feat of religious tolerance. Things that we're finding to be effective are the practices of humbleness (as in the admission that I don't know everything) and mutual respect (as in the awareness that someone else's opinion matters as much as mine does).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

We are not tolerating oppression, aggression, or Brittany Spear's latest fiasco.

Don't we? This is where it gets serious, we may not tolerate oppression or aggression withing the monastery, but while we frown on those we do tolerate them in the real world for the most part. Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.

[Aggie]

We are not tolerating oppression, aggression, or Brittany Spear's latest fiasco.

Don't we? This is where it gets serious, we may not tolerate oppression or aggression withing the monastery, but while we frown on those we do tolerate them in the real world for the most part. Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.

Contrariwise, there's many people out there who may not be particularly tolerant, yet aren't taking openly intolerant action against Groups X,Y,Z (attitudes may be a different story).

Perhaps what we need to promote more than simple tolerance is tolerant communication aimed at creating mutual understanding between groups; a sharing of perspectives, if you will.   The trouble is keeping the focus on learning from one another rather than teaching one another the 'error' of their ways.

[ivor]

I think we'll have to be patient until we get everyone into the monastery.

[goat starer]

Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.

To Arms!!! To Arms!!! we must oppose this Brittany fiasco (what did Bretons do to you all anyhow?)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Britney? Apart from her lack of judgment (and undies ) what other fiasco has she been involved in lately?

Now, the Bretons elected Sarkozy, and the Britts Brown, is that trigger of the imminent revolution?


Edit: I checked and almost all Brittany voted for Royal, apologies to any bretons reading this.

[Griffin NoName]

I think we'll have to be patient until we get everyone into the monastery.

[Opsa]

Get thee to a nunnery!!!! 

[anthrobabe]

Not doing so would imply a significantly active stance regarding those issues and I know that at least I am not doing much more than frowning.

To Arms!!! To Arms!!! we must oppose this Brittany fiasco (what did Bretons do to you all anyhow?)

she's moving to your town..............