For Them What Care
Latest Entries Older Entries" Guestbook Contact Me My Profile Diaryland

The other day in his entry entitled Blind Certainty, moustache wrote, "...moral certainty, taken to extremes, is much worse than moral equivalency." But he didn't note the inverse; that moral equivalency, taken to extremes, is much worse than moral certainty. For some reason this bothered me. I'm generally against the whole subjectivist's view of "shades of grey" but since I'm not going to convince others of the problem with this position I generally leave it alone.

Instead I went to the heart of justification of Political Correctness (PC). When he said, "The underlying message of 'being PC' is tolerance," I didn't think his position could be supported by facts. The culture of "being PC" is one that says only one side may take a stand on a moral issue of the day. And that side is usually the one that is "transforming" the existing social norm. If there are two sides to every debate, it would seem to me that both sides should be able to participate without being labeled.

After all, screaming INTOLERANCE at those whose disagree with you (and say so) is the heart of being PC. It is more a culture of saying "I'm okay, and if you DISAGREE with that I'll break you nose." In that world, you are either quiet/accepting or vocal/unaccepting and intolerant. Why can't someone simply disagree in a public forum without being labeled racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.? It is not a seeking of tolerance but a seeking of acceptance that they shot for. When I attempt to justify my moral choices as being of equal value to anyone else's and thus above scrutiny I'm simply fooling myself. All choices must stand up to reasoned scrutiny. Sure, I have the freedom to believe anything I want and to live my life as I want but if I want to change other's beliefs I better be coming forward with OBJECTIVE proof that I'm right. You have no inherent right to unquestioning acceptance OF YOUR IDEALS. None. If I want to change your mind, the weight of evidence better be on my side.

Moustache also doesn't appear to see that "being PC" often puts a person in the position of being "intolerant." The PC argument goes, "I like apples but you hate apples therefore you are unaccepting of my views." If this seems illogical it is because the PC person is not after tolerance but rather "validation." In no way did my opinion invalidate your opinion but yet, I'm intolerant?!? I, as a conservative, republican, however you want to classify me, don't care that you like apples. In fact, I may never know this about you unless you bring it up. But if you attempted to pass a law saying all children must eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away I'm free to resist your influence. Should I be able to do such without being characterized as an apple bigot? I might believe it should be oranges.

When you introduce your ideas for public scrutiny you should accept the risk that some are going to deem them "funny or stupid." You should also realize that you might be wrong. There is such a thing as right and wrong and you can find "the truth" if you keep looking.

An internet blogger that goes by the name Geminiman wrote, "The universe is black and white. Gravity is gravity, E always = MC^2. The shades of grey are wrong answers that are progressively closer and closer to the truth, without being the truth. To put it another way, they have fewer and fewer contradictions (or the contradictions are easier to hide in BS like self-sacrifice). The contradictions still are there and plain for anyone with a brain to see. And since there is no such thing as a contradiction (a paradox) when you encounter one, you know you've got the wrong answer." This in part paraphrases Ayn Rand, a renown author and philosopher (objectivist).

Geminiman continues, "The next time someone asks you to compromise, remember, that what you're doing is negotiating with a lie. If you're right, there is no compromise necessary. If you're wrong, go find the right answer. If you're right and negotiate with a lie, you allow evil to win, because you were not willing to fight for the truth. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Of course, you have to believe there is such a thing as evil...

Squotter observed, "...but it is never possible to allow yourself more freedom than what is available in the system," and I agree. Surely we wouldn't give moral equality to those amongst us that are thieves, murderers and rapists. The system that has grown up around us teaches us that there is "right" and there is "wrong" and that these things fall into the wrong camp. The above does NOT exist within some prismatic color palette consisting of "brilliant pastels; murky and transparent." It is black and white. It is also evil.

Moustache saying that once you take out the extremes of the Dahmer's and Gandhi, being PC's worst output is being funny or stupid while having too little tolerance is horrifying. I submit that there is a place in the world for intolerance and it is not just for the Jeffery Dahmers of the world. Should we be tolerant of different cultures that treat women as property? How about those cultures that mutilate a women's body? How about cultures that live off of child labor? More closer to home, should we tolerate child molesters? Spouses that engage in physical or psychological abuse? How about abortion? If you have a moral foundation that believes abortion is murder, are you wrong to be intolerant of such acts? Should you be feared because of this? If it was a moral imperative that society find and stopped Dahmer then what is society's responsibility in saving the lives of millions of unborn children? The "freedom" question is one were reasonable people should be able to have a dialog without resorting to name calling. It is wrong to call someone unpatriotic for opposing the war and it is wrong to call someone homophobic for opposing gay marriage.

There exists a sliding scale where on either end of tolerance exists actions that can and should be viewed with intolerance. We may fundamentally disagree on which items rate intolerance in the specific but in general I doubt our lists would be vastly different. My point is that "tolerance" is not always right, "intolerance" is not always wrong, and to categorically define one extreme as more scary than another is wrong. Being PC is about being both tolerant and intolerant while expressing with a moral certainty that their individual choices are free from scrutiny and must be accepted equally by all. With that I disagree.

previous - next - links



� colin-g 2001-2003