Skip to main content

An Argument In Favor Of Tolerance

 The only argument against tolerance I can think of is the assertion of superiority of one group over all others, that justifies it to mold the rest according to the paradigm. But, to put it abstractly, the fragment cannot become the whole. There are two ways a group may assert its superiority over others. First theoretically through debate and discussion and second through power. These two senses are often mixed. I have seen people assert their superiority over others while at the same time asking others to ban or shut out the people of another group. These two assertions together are incompatible. It is like proclaiming yourself a winner in a race you are running alone. Since most of the times a group of people seek power, they do not seek it because they are superior but they seek it to be superior - that is the raison d'etre of power.

In the face of this we are in a dilemma. The weak who cannot defend themselves against a superior power would be left at the mercy of the superior one who would also justify their use of superior force. If power is justification then are we to accept the justifications of the powerful? Can a particular sect be allowed to define morality and thereby arbitrate what is right and what is wrong? If you think the answer is no then the only reason is that moral laws are universal that apply to every human being irrespective of which sect he belongs to and thereby is binding to all irrespective of their membership to a particular sect. Otherwise the powerful apart from having the power would also have the moral right to trample the weak under their feet.

This concerned the theoretical part. Coming to the practical part even the powerful would think before misusing their power since it is a basic need for them to appear moral. Hence power is in the inherent need to justify itself and cannot be its own justification and thus has to be unleashed under a pretext. These days we are seeing a trend where through various forms of media the opinion of people is being controlled. What people do not realize is this - when one sect acts unjustly towards another they invalidate the laws and principles of justice which thereby loose legitimacy not simply towards people of another group but even within the group itself because if these laws loose legitimacy towards one they loose legitimacy for all which attests to their universal nature. Through refraining from self-restraint towards a weaker group the majority were not simply protecting the minority; they were protecting themselves too. A fragment that tries to become the whole is necessarily on the path of self-destruction. This constitutes a theoretical and practical argument for tolerance and against intolerance. It is morally wrong and practically self-destructive.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ramanuja and Nimbarka

  The primary question for any Vedanta philosophy is what is the relation between Brahman and the world and Brahman and the individual souls. Nimbarka takes this relation to be one of identity and difference. He gives the analogy of a coiled snake and of sun and its rays. Brahman is both immanent and transcendent; the souls and matter are really just the different manifest states of the one Brahman. The concern with such a philosophy is to show that the immanence of Brahman does not compromise its unity and the impurities that accrue to the soul and matter do not thereby affect Brahman. Ramanuja believes that this is not possible in the Bheda-Abheda system (his criticisms of Bhaskara would with certain modifications apply also to Nimbarka). The reason is identity and difference cannot be affirmed simultaneously of the same object. Identity is an absolute relation or in the logical terminology of Nyaya it is a locus pervading relation. In terms of Modern Logic identity is a reflexiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anyathakhyativada

  Anyatha-khyati-vada basically says that error involves seeing something different from the way it actually is. Every cognition is structured in a certain way; we see something as something. Thus in the cognition: This is a red tomato; tomato is seen as possessing red color; so schematically the cognition is of the form a-R-b where (a) is the qualificand and (b) the qualifier and R the relation between the two which in this case is inherence. The qualifier resides in the qualificand and distinguishes it from everything else that does not possess that qualifier. Thus red color here is the distinguishing feature of tomato which is the qualificand and distinguishes it from anything else possessing a different color. In erroneous cognition the qualificand is seen as qualified by something that does not reside within it e.g. black color in case of a cognition of what really is a red tomato seen as black. Now for Nyaya in a false cognition a and b are both real entities but they are wro...
Post a Comment
Read more

SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT – PART 1 – RAMANUJA’S VISHISTHADVAITA VEDANTA

  SCHOOLS OF INDIAN THOUGHT – PART 1 – RAMANUJA’S VISHISTHADVAITA VEDANTA APRITHAKSIDDHI : The central concept of VisishtAdvaita Philosophy is that Brahman alone is organically related to the soul (chit) and matter (achit) and is the ultimate reality. Chit and Achit are absolutely different and yet inseparable from Brahman. Though these two entities draw their very existence from Brahman. Brahman is independent of them just as the soul is independent from the body but remains the inner controller of both chit and achit. This relationship of inseparability is called Aprithaksiddhi. Empirically we find that a substance and an attribute though different yet are related to each other inseparably. Take for example a blue jar. The jar is different from the colour blue but both are referred to in the judgment, “This is a blue jar”. Perception reveals them to be identical but yet they cannot be identical, for jar is certainly different from the blue colour and not all jars are blue nor...
Post a Comment
Read more