Tolerance ...
when wondering about
core issues in
ethics,
one has to ask,
is it a virtue?
What if someone
means harm to the kittens?
Zero tolerance for that.
Universal ethics,
the ethics of care -
no tolerance for
those who would
do harm.
Tolerance ... not always a virtue
A few days ago, I was faced with an assumption. "One of the strengths of good ethics is tolerance," someone wrote to me.
My answer is a clear no.
One of the strengths of good ethics is having a good understanding of reality, and coming to good principles based on what we find in that reality.
So to tolerate those who would do us harm harms people, including ourselves. Hitler - he gained years of time because of the tolerance of leaders like British Prime Minister Chamberlain who did not take him seriously.
Good ethics, what I call reality-based ethics, takes consequences into consideration.
Tolerance of what is harmful is very often dangerous. So it's bad ethics. Unethical.
My ethics in a nutshell: liberty until harm. It's great to tolerate - and more, to accept, to embrace - what does not harm, even if it doesn't suit us, from hair styles to life styles. But if something harms us and/or others, this isn't something to tolerate.
Note: harm is very different from offence. But enough of that here. If you want more, I've written about what I see an universal ethics.
Elsa
August 16, 2012
previous next
What are good morals ethics?
Is tolerance a virtue? Being tolerant or not – this is one of the core issues in ethics, universal ethics, the ethics of care.
To go from this blog journal on morals ethics,
to a blog on universal ethics, click here.
To go from this blog journal on the ethics of tolerance
to the role of emotion in motivation,
click here.
|