The "Tolerance Trap"

It's difficult rendering moral judgment, sometimes.  People [of which I am one, so I include myself mere] have different feelings, different beliefs, different life experiences and ethical axioms and gut reactions and reasoned opinions and unreasoned opinions and received wisdom and inherited prejudices, that finding a consensus on moral issues is nigh-impossible, be it globally, nationally, in a community, or even in a household.  (Heck, I sometimes argue with myself over these things.)  

But, of course, most moral teachers will tell you that morality is not a majority rule. While there is a lot of value to democracy and representative government, and some worthiness to the idea that "a million heads are better than one," correct moral judgments sometimes escape the undertstanding of the masses as much as they can the understanding of the individual.

So a lot of people, myself, try to promote tolerance.  Much of what moral judgment leads to is simply individual behavior and beliefs, personal codes of conduct and the like.  If someone believes in dressing up in funny clothes, or engaging in odd rituals, or believing strange metaphysical concepts, or donating their time or money to causes they believe in, it's little skin off my nose.  Maybe. If someone wants to get married to someone else, and I don't approve of it morally (or in any other fashion), whether it's people I think are unsuited due to gender, or race, or religion, or because one's a celebrity ditz and one's a gold-digger out to score a big future alimony payment, ultimately it's little of my business, and it's better to get along with it.

But there are activities and workings out of moral and religioius/spiritual beliefs that are less tolerable, in different levels (socially or legally).  That's the "tolerance trap" talked about before, though, again, what it means will vary from person to person.  To what extent do I tolerate someone with racial beliefs I find virulently repugnant?  Perhaps I tolerate them legally (accepting, or even protecting, their right to speak their mind), but not socially (I don't invite them to my house, I don't vote for them as representatives, etc.).  To what extent do I tolerate someone whose moral judgment leads to repugnant behavior — e.g., female genital mutilation, or other forms of physical or mental or emotional child abuse?  Or to what extent do I tolerate someone whose moral beliefs prohibit certain medical activities with results that could injure others — withholding medication from a sick child, or refusing to vaccinate their children, or wanting to ban abortion?  

So, yes, there can be a "toleration trap" where we simply say, "Well, you know, he believes differently, so we should allow it, or even celebrate him as a diverse member of our community."  Which is great if we're talking about the Zen Buddhist Hippy who maybe smokes a little pot on the weekend, but bad if we're talking about the child rapist, and sketchy if we're talking about the local KKK head honcho.

Even the parameters of how to decide when to tolerate are themselves moral judgments as to what actually matters.  Most (and moral judgment is not necessarily majoritarian, but bear with me) would agree that beating up a kid is wrong and should be stoped — but is that just a matter of breaking bones and causing bruises, or is spanking allowable? How about yelling at a kid?  Or making them stand in the corner?  Or doing something that some might consider humiliating?  What we choose to legally tolerate varies over time and place, and, again, is different from what we socially tolerate or approve of or encourage.

So, yes, I can understand what Mr. Packer below is talking about — something being legal doesn't make it moral (as so many of the shenanigans in our banking industry seem to demonstrate). The tensions between one's personal moral beliefs and what we tolerate in others is always present, even among people who claim to be he most tolerant. (Do we have to tolerate the intolerant? Use both sides of the paper if necessary.)

For what it's worth I probably disagree on a number of moral issues with Mr. Packer, but I'm willing to tolerate him as a member of our society, even if I think he, himself, can be "spiritually damaging" to others.

Reshared post from +Curt Thompson

Oh, you wacky Mormon leaders. Don't ever change (your magic underwear).