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

A Summary of Hegel's Important Works

  History has been unjust to Hegel but in recent times his philosophy is garnering some attention. In my opinion he is perhaps the greatest western philosopher since Plato and Aristotle. He should be counted as a Platonist who has developed the Aristotelian version of Platonism combined with Spinoza’s theory of material causality of God and the demands of critical philosophy. Below is a brief summary of his important works: 1.      Faith and Knowledge: This is work is critical of Kant, Fichte and Jacobi all of whom believed that it is important to make room for faith by limiting the pretensions of reason. Jacobi argues that reason cannot prove its own validity and so we need a salto mortale to justify reason - a faith based or poetical justification of reason. The need for such a justification arises because reason is mediated and incapable of providing immediate knowledge. What is mediate is finite and through the finite or conditioned we cannot grasp the unc...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Logic of Logic

  Logic is a method that allows us to acquire valid knowledge of a target domain by allowing us to discriminate between truth and falsehood. How can logic tell us what is true and false? It does not serve in the capacity of acquisition of information but it allows us to critically assess the information to sort out truth and falsehood. Thus we may see a stick bent in water but reason convinces us that it is an illusion. How do we arrive at such a method? We try to think through cases where we have valid knowledge as opposed where we don’t and then we try to see what is common in those cases and this occasions the philosophical reflection about what is valid knowledge and why are we able to gain such knowledge at all. Obviously the capacity must pre-exist for there to be logic but by turning the torchlight towards this capacity and inquiring about its condition of success we can develop a method which if followed would enhance this capacity to discriminate between truth and falsehoo...
Post a Comment
Read more