Aside from death, few things promise us as much freedom as democracy. But how does democracy, unlike other political systems, offer us the greatest degree of freedom? There is a quality in democracy which overwhelms us called 'tolerance'. This quality allows us to freely express diverse ideas and opinions which sometimes we may not agree on. It shields us off from the persecution of the worst kind of opinion, namely, public opinion. It assures us the expression of heretic opinions without being brought up in front of The Inquisition. Therefore, my dear reader, can you lay your hands on your heart and say that tolerance is bad? However, the reality suggests the otherwise. Tolerance seems to have done as much harm as good.
What, then, is wrong with tolerance? Instead of using it as a means to promote freedom, people use it to promote barbarian acts. I have in mind a species of tolerance called 'multiculturalism'. The study of anthropology reveals to us that people from other places in the world persist on the values which most of us are not accustomed to. Most of those customs many modern readers may find absurd. Therefore, it is wicked to impose our cultural imperialism upon others who are not accustomed to our values. We are then expected to justify female genital mutilation, to believe witchcraft can cure diseases, and to acknowledge the fact that some women are witches. Because all this is their tradition which persists on through ages. We do not have any right whatsoever to criticise their values and condemn them as barbarians. Moreover, if multiculturalism means the tolerance of diverse cultures, it also means we must respect other traditions. It is therefore tyrannical to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland and it is wicked to prevent Islam women from wearing garments to cover their hair in France. But the fact they have emigrated to there means they have to fit in their cultures. If they refuse to do so, they do not deserve to live there.
But tolerance has another offspring called 'Political Correctness'. When we wish to say 'Merry Christmas' on Christmas holidays, our politically correct peers will remind us that it is more appropriate to say 'Happy Winter Festivals' or 'Happy Holidays' like President Obama did. We can no longer use the word 'marriage' because this word is tied up with Christianity which is another form of cultural imperialism. The correct way to say it would be 'civil union'. This theory has significantly gained support from some feminists as well. They revolutionise our commonly used language. We can no longer say 'men of science' because women can be scientists too. It is immensely important that when we say 'he', we must add 'she' after a stroke. It is outrageous to generalise women as relatively irrational because women are capable of being philosophers as well. How more tolerant we can be.
There is in this world too much tolerance. Tolerance was initially a quality which grants us the freedom to express our individual views. It is a milestone for individualism. Unfortunately, it is precisely the reason that too much tolerance has marked the end of our Enlightenment spirit. In the world of twenty-first century, we can no longer criticise values and religions on the ground that our criticism may offend others' ideological familiarity. In ancient Greece, Plato and Socrates, or if you prefer, the Platonic Socrates, had an urge to re-educate the Athenians. They taught them to arrive at judgement through rational enquiry and unbiased evaluation of evidence. Unfortunately, this tradition has failed to pass down after the Enlightenment period. What we have today is fundamentalism and relativism. It is a norm that we should stifle our doubts and follow the flock because we scarcely can be pioneers of hitherto difficult and unknown truths. Which lifestyle we choose no longer matters anymore because all values and beliefs are equally valid. The concepts of autonomy and self-realisation become vacuous because it is impossible not to realise ourselves.
Tolerance is nevertheless a means to promote freedom. However, this quality, if carried too far, will become a driving force of intellectual laziness. We no longer dwell upon matters with great precision. We no longer acknowledge ourselves as individuals. We wish to be part of the herd instinct. Is there hope in the future? I do not know. What I hope is that I shall not have to live the world at its worst.
W
Political correctness makes me agitated. It's like this massive, unnecessary step away from freedom of speech, for fear of offending somebody. I think it was Mill who said that we shouldn't pass laws to prevent offence, but all over the world laws are being passed doing exactly that. There are blasphemy laws put in place to punish anyone who speaks out against religion but that means anyone opposing that particular religion, either with one of their own or with something else is then breaking these stupid laws.
ReplyDeletePeople are suing each other and companies over the words they use or the lights they put up because they felt offended.
Offence isn't good enough to build laws on. Yeah, prevention of physical violence is good enough, which is why stopping people preaching hate is important not because their words are offending you but because their actions can lead to physical violence.
Tolerance in society is important. We need to be tolerant of the people around us rather than burning their houses down for being different.
I personally do not want to be part of that herd mentality, but I imagine it's easier to get along if you just file in.
But there is a problem regarding hate speech and propaganda. If the propaganda will convince the public to do something which is harmful to the society (and let's assume that the public will do it), then I think that type of speech should be prohibited. One example would be Nazism. I don't think most people will agree on the ideology of Nazism, but I suppose that helps to illustrate my example. It ultimately depends on how stupid the flock is.
ReplyDeleteI do believe we shouldn't pass laws to prevent offence in an 'ideal' democratic society.
W