it's his fault again
I keep writing long responses to walrusjester. As if I'm not wordy enough without prodding, though I guess recently I haven't been.
He posits the idea that he believes fervently in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Not an ironic belief with a t-shirt and bumper sticker, but a real belief where he raises his kids to believe it, wants it taught in schools, and is passing out literature. What is the nature of tolerance with regards to this belief which is obviously ridiculous?
We owe people, as human beings, respect. Everyone deserves just about the same amount of respect, as people are inherently respectable because they're people. Even when someone debases themselves in some way your respect for them as a person should, ideally, remain unchanged. That's a difficult standard, but it's a noble one.
Notice how I start out a discussion of how to treat beliefs with a statement of faith. There's no way to prove that each person has the same value--indeed, there's plenty of arguments against it. But that's where I'm starting.
Beliefs, thoughts, or actions, on the other hand, are not inherently deserving of respect. I can have very little respect for your FSM beliefs but still have respect for you. And because I respect you, I may need to prod your FSM beliefs because you are better than that.
Of course, I should also say that just because I don't share your FSM beliefs, I could respect them because you've obviously thought a lot about them, they grow as you reflect on them, and you're passionate about them. For all these and other reasons, I could disagree with you but have tons of respect for your beliefs. I wouldn't have a marriage if it weren't possible for me to respect beliefs I don't share. But I think you're setting this up where I don't respect your beliefs, so let's run with that.
So I don't respect your FSM beliefs, but I respect you. I have every right to question your beliefs, and even a moral obligation to try to correct your mistaken concepts. If I didn't respect you, I might let you languish in ignorance. But since I do respect you, and I believe you're capable of better thinking, it's not right to just let you be mistaken, especially about important things that affect how you live your life (for the purpose of this, let's assume your life choices are affected by your belief in the FSM).
But now the theory collides with practicality. What's the likely result of confronting you on these beliefs? For 99% of people, 99% of the time, confronting someone directly on beliefs they hold dear will result in defensiveness and mental fortifications. In other words, you'll get in your intellectual foxhole, grab your ideological rifle, and defend your position to the death. Which is the opposite of solving the problem.
So the better way is to let things lie, and wait for an opportunity. Maybe you bring up some doubts about the FSM which you want to explore in a discussion. That's a great opening, and I owe it to you to help you out of your intellectual trap.
Maybe you ask me to explain what I believe. And in this case, I point out some better ideas without directly challenging your mistaken ideas. I say, "Here's what I think, which I support by X, Y, and Z" rather than saying, "Your FSM beliefs are wrong." In essence, if you're willing to enter into a honest debate, I take the opportunity.
If you don't offer that opening, the only thing I can do is make choices based on my beliefs, which might eventually act as an example.
But waiting for an opening becomes the wrong answer when you propagate wrong ideas. Letting you pass along incorrect ideas unchallenged is bad--again, not only are you better than that, but the people listening also deserve something more than falsehood. So I have an obligation to point out other views I find more likely or reasonable, especially if the person receiving the information is impressionable (young, at a vulnerable spot in their lives, etc.) and the information is potentially life-changing.
Also, if you are trying to push your ideas onto me, I have some boundaries I won't let you cross. If you ask me not to eat pasta in your presence I can probably comply, though it is unusual and I might not share a lot of meals with you for fear of inadvertently offending you. But if you're telling me never to eat pasta and constantly preaching to me about it, or trying to pass a law preventing the sale or consumption of pasta based on your beliefs, I can then challenge your attempt to press your ideas onto my life. And if you then fall back on the idea that these ideas are the truth, I can then challenge that claim as part of my resistance to accepting your beliefs as binding on my life. But it would be a mistake to confuse the debate on whether these beliefs can be imposed on those who don't hold them with the debate on whether the beliefs are true.
Of course, all laws are based on beliefs at some point. What if I believe that murder is just part of natural selection and should be legal? What if I don't believe in private property, therefore can't be charged with stealing? We as a society have agreed on a set of shared standards to which we hold ourselves. You can try to add abstinence from pasta as part of our shared standards, but I also have the right to argue against it. The legal system (a referendum or a decision by elected representatives) will determine whether the pasta prohibition is part of our shared standards, and even if it passes it's my right to campaign for its repeal. Nothing in my opposition is disrespectful to you or even your beliefs. The problem is with the addition of those beliefs to our legal system.
You always have to let people make their own decisions about their beliefs, but you can question beliefs and offer new ones without losing respect for the person. The trick is making it clear that you're questioning the value of the beliefs and ideas, not the person themselves, and that is really quite tough to pull off. So many people challenge ideas by attacking the people who promote them that it's natural to confuse a challenge to former as an attack on the latter.
The trickiest part here is maintaining humility. In this case, being humble means remembering that you're capable of being wrong. If you want to encourage someone else to change, you have to be open to change yourself. But none of that means you are wrong, or that you must demean yourself or your ideas to communicate with someone. Just as you are questioning the value of the beliefs of the person and not the person themselves, so you must make arguments based on the ideas you are promoting and not your own value. Your value as a person is unquestionable--what your ideas are worth is independent of that. So you must establish their value on their own merits.
He posits the idea that he believes fervently in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Not an ironic belief with a t-shirt and bumper sticker, but a real belief where he raises his kids to believe it, wants it taught in schools, and is passing out literature. What is the nature of tolerance with regards to this belief which is obviously ridiculous?
We owe people, as human beings, respect. Everyone deserves just about the same amount of respect, as people are inherently respectable because they're people. Even when someone debases themselves in some way your respect for them as a person should, ideally, remain unchanged. That's a difficult standard, but it's a noble one.
Notice how I start out a discussion of how to treat beliefs with a statement of faith. There's no way to prove that each person has the same value--indeed, there's plenty of arguments against it. But that's where I'm starting.
Beliefs, thoughts, or actions, on the other hand, are not inherently deserving of respect. I can have very little respect for your FSM beliefs but still have respect for you. And because I respect you, I may need to prod your FSM beliefs because you are better than that.
Of course, I should also say that just because I don't share your FSM beliefs, I could respect them because you've obviously thought a lot about them, they grow as you reflect on them, and you're passionate about them. For all these and other reasons, I could disagree with you but have tons of respect for your beliefs. I wouldn't have a marriage if it weren't possible for me to respect beliefs I don't share. But I think you're setting this up where I don't respect your beliefs, so let's run with that.
So I don't respect your FSM beliefs, but I respect you. I have every right to question your beliefs, and even a moral obligation to try to correct your mistaken concepts. If I didn't respect you, I might let you languish in ignorance. But since I do respect you, and I believe you're capable of better thinking, it's not right to just let you be mistaken, especially about important things that affect how you live your life (for the purpose of this, let's assume your life choices are affected by your belief in the FSM).
But now the theory collides with practicality. What's the likely result of confronting you on these beliefs? For 99% of people, 99% of the time, confronting someone directly on beliefs they hold dear will result in defensiveness and mental fortifications. In other words, you'll get in your intellectual foxhole, grab your ideological rifle, and defend your position to the death. Which is the opposite of solving the problem.
So the better way is to let things lie, and wait for an opportunity. Maybe you bring up some doubts about the FSM which you want to explore in a discussion. That's a great opening, and I owe it to you to help you out of your intellectual trap.
Maybe you ask me to explain what I believe. And in this case, I point out some better ideas without directly challenging your mistaken ideas. I say, "Here's what I think, which I support by X, Y, and Z" rather than saying, "Your FSM beliefs are wrong." In essence, if you're willing to enter into a honest debate, I take the opportunity.
If you don't offer that opening, the only thing I can do is make choices based on my beliefs, which might eventually act as an example.
But waiting for an opening becomes the wrong answer when you propagate wrong ideas. Letting you pass along incorrect ideas unchallenged is bad--again, not only are you better than that, but the people listening also deserve something more than falsehood. So I have an obligation to point out other views I find more likely or reasonable, especially if the person receiving the information is impressionable (young, at a vulnerable spot in their lives, etc.) and the information is potentially life-changing.
Also, if you are trying to push your ideas onto me, I have some boundaries I won't let you cross. If you ask me not to eat pasta in your presence I can probably comply, though it is unusual and I might not share a lot of meals with you for fear of inadvertently offending you. But if you're telling me never to eat pasta and constantly preaching to me about it, or trying to pass a law preventing the sale or consumption of pasta based on your beliefs, I can then challenge your attempt to press your ideas onto my life. And if you then fall back on the idea that these ideas are the truth, I can then challenge that claim as part of my resistance to accepting your beliefs as binding on my life. But it would be a mistake to confuse the debate on whether these beliefs can be imposed on those who don't hold them with the debate on whether the beliefs are true.
Of course, all laws are based on beliefs at some point. What if I believe that murder is just part of natural selection and should be legal? What if I don't believe in private property, therefore can't be charged with stealing? We as a society have agreed on a set of shared standards to which we hold ourselves. You can try to add abstinence from pasta as part of our shared standards, but I also have the right to argue against it. The legal system (a referendum or a decision by elected representatives) will determine whether the pasta prohibition is part of our shared standards, and even if it passes it's my right to campaign for its repeal. Nothing in my opposition is disrespectful to you or even your beliefs. The problem is with the addition of those beliefs to our legal system.
You always have to let people make their own decisions about their beliefs, but you can question beliefs and offer new ones without losing respect for the person. The trick is making it clear that you're questioning the value of the beliefs and ideas, not the person themselves, and that is really quite tough to pull off. So many people challenge ideas by attacking the people who promote them that it's natural to confuse a challenge to former as an attack on the latter.
The trickiest part here is maintaining humility. In this case, being humble means remembering that you're capable of being wrong. If you want to encourage someone else to change, you have to be open to change yourself. But none of that means you are wrong, or that you must demean yourself or your ideas to communicate with someone. Just as you are questioning the value of the beliefs of the person and not the person themselves, so you must make arguments based on the ideas you are promoting and not your own value. Your value as a person is unquestionable--what your ideas are worth is independent of that. So you must establish their value on their own merits.