Ethical dilemma

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by engineerjoe, Jun 3, 2010.

  1. engineerjoe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    47
    There are 2 groups: Group A and Group B.

    Group A is intolerant of Group B (based on gender, race, religion, etc). Group B tries to ignore it.

    If you are tolerant of Group A, are you not intolerant of Group B by default?

    If you are intolerant of Group A due to their intolerance of Group B does this not make you tolerant?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    If I tolerate one particular stance does that make me (necessarily) intolerant of the "opposing" (or counter-) stance?
    If I "tolerate" homosexuality (for example) does that mean I'm intolerant of heterosexuality? Does it mean I'm intolerant of homophobes?

    Um, if you're INTOLERANT of one particular group are you tolerant? How does that work?

    There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. engineerjoe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    47
    Ok lets take the homophobe example: If you are tolerant of homophobes and their actions toward homosexuals, doesnt that make you somewhat intolerant of of homosexuals by proxy? Or at least tolerant of poor treatment towards homosexuals? I mean it seems like a cop out to just say 'Im tolerant of everything.' If one group is creating harm towards another, you cant really be ok with both groups...can you?

    Im not trying to argue any point here, Im really just trying to get a better understanding of people.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    In this example there is a situation of "being tolerant to intolerance (homophobia)". I am saying this, because your definition of homophobia is not bounded by people staying away from homosexuals; but they are also transforming this feeling into an active behaviour and treating homosexuals badly in your example. And they don't even have to physically or verbally attack them; even if they simply don't recruit homosexuals for a position, just because of their sexual choice this is a discrimination and still a "bad behaviour". That's why I defined your sample homophobia it as "intolerance".

    According to my understanding, being tolerant to intolerance is also being part of this intolerance. "I don't like gay people (homophobia: don't like them simply because they are gay), but I don't harm them (passive) , yet I don't care if anybody else practically shows their dislike towards them (active homophobia)"; still the same thing: These active homophobes can behave so freely partly because they know that some other people (passive homophobes) will secretly show tolerance to their actions. In social scale they actually share the action. It's not different than voting for some politicians who will act on behalf of you. You can not be politician because of some practical reasons, yet you are voting them and they are legitimized.

    "I am tolerant to everything" is nonsense. You can say that "I understand/guess why or how some people are behaving badly to homosexuals" even if you love homosexuals. But being tolerant is something totally different than understanding. Being tolerant means taking part.
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    That was the point I was trying to make.
    As far as I'm concerned you can be tolerant toward one particular group without necessarily being anti- their "opponents". I was tolerant of my parents' fondness for golf, but there was no way I was intolerant of those who didn't like golf... Twain had the definition correct - A good walk, ruined.

    Semi edit: after quoting the definition (see below) I suppose it depends which definition of "tolerate" is in question. As far as golf is concerned put me in meaning 3!

    @ Baftan;
    Huh?
    Not exactly. It's "allowing" others to take part without let or hindrance.
    For example I'm "tolerant"* of homosexuality - to the extent that most of my drinking is done in the local gay club. But I don't "take part" in, er, other things they get up to.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    * I put "tolerate" in quote marks because the word is so often used as in meaning 3 in the definition above, whereas (in the case I used it) it's meanings 1 and 2.
     
  9. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    My mistake; I should have added "in this particular example". Because I made my statement according to the given example where tolerant person showing his/her tolerance towards people who act badly towards homosexual people. This tolerance is not in the form of "respecting the difference", it is in the form of being a passive supporter.

    This doesn't count as all clubs are gay in Britain... Yours is probably "very gay".
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Not true. Some are just crap.

    And they won't even play Motorhead!
     
  11. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    It sounds like they are "secretly" gay.

    That's what I call an "ethical dilemma".
     
  12. engineerjoe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    47
    So then it really comes down to how tolerance is defined. Its amazing how many arguments are based on differing definitions of the same words and how each side assumes the other shares an exact opinion of what a word or concept means. Thanks
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    What do you mean by "amazing" and "thanks"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think it comes down to "what did YOU mean" when you used the word "tolerance".
    For example I used it in the meaning (as I understood it) of the first 2 in the definition, but I'm also aware of use 3 - for example "I can tolerate cold weather [but I'd much rather not]" is different from "I tolerate homosexuality [it doesn't bother me one way or the other about other peoples' choice of partner but it's not something I'd want to do myself]"
     
  14. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    When I read it under the holy umbrella of sarcasm, it makes a lot of sense...
     
  15. engineerjoe Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    47
    I was not being sarcastic. By amazing I meant I am starting to realize how many arguments arise from two sides debating an issue and using the same words but having differing definitions of those words and assuming the opposite side in the debate shares 'their' definition.

    By thanks I was simply expressing gratitude for each of you posting here, offering your thoughts and time, and helping me through my own thought process.
     
  16. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    I apologize if you got the impression that I am implying you've been sarcastic, I didn't think that: It's just me reading it sarcastically, I found it entertaining. Don't get me wrong; I thank you for starting this thread.
     

Share This Page