You never offered any information. What evidence suggests I’m not open to it?
In fact, the closest thing to an argument against the idea that anyone made, is that it doesn’t scale well. Which is of course true. But this is about the morality of ways to deal with bigots, not the practically.
Well, I’m glad you at least recognize that your solution to bigotry is not practical. I agree that it’s a moral ideal, but morality to my mind depends at least as much on effect as intention, which is where practicality comes in, and the fact that showing “unearned compassion” to bigots, at least in the way I typically seem to see that interpreted, just emboldens them and makes life worse for everyone else. The most extreme example of this is, as alluded to, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, but we see the same thing play out on a smaller scale frequently.
Most people who discuss morality with any frequency will probably tell you that whether or not you know the outcome of an action ahead of time does impact its morality. So I would argue, because we know that showing bigots “unearned compassion” rather than societally refusing to tolerate their behavior invariably has a net negative impact on those who are the targets of their bigotry, that would render it not the moral ideal we might like it to be.
I suppose I’m marking a difference between tolerating bigots, and tolerating bigotry. Respecting and accepting people with bigoted ideas, is very different from respecting and accepting the ideas themselves. Part of being a friend, is point out when that friend is being dick. That would still hold true here.
You don’t believe people when they tell you who they are. You imagine their actions and their beliefs to be separate from the individual even though they are the beliefs and actions of the individual. Your idealism doesn’t reflect reality.
You were never apart from society so you are bound by the social contract by default, failure to uphold the social contract will result in the following violence: being put in the corner, being told ‘no’, spanking, detention, suspension, loss of employment, physical violence, police arrest, incarceration, garnishing of wages, loss of access to social services, etc.
That’s an argument to uphold the analogy of a social contract. Basically arguing it’s it fine to be born into a contract you had no choice in. However, that same logic can be used to justify all sorts of terrible things. It goes all the way back to the bible and earlier: Holding the child responsible for the sins of their father.
It doesn’t however directly address my claim of moral high ground, for using what I call unearned compassion to win over bigots.
This isn’t an argument, it’s a fact. The only way to not be part of the social contract is to remove yourself from society, including all of societies infrastructure. You are obligated to support and work within the rules of the society you are a part of. If you object on moral reasons then you can make your attempts to change your society or which society you are part of through whatever means you have access to.
That is all true, as long as you’re not using it to justify a moral position. Those are all facts. Well… Not the “social contract” phrase. That’s a term of art based on an analogy. But you’re salient point is absolutely a fact, and correct. We do agree on that.
But again, it says nothing against the concept I’m trying to promote and argue here. The most moral way to handle a bigot is with compassion, rather then more hatred.
Not exactly? I don’t think. I think your referring to the belligerence of humanity as a whole. While I’m talking about individual action.
If you personally run across someone bigoted, it would be better for both of you, if you tried to be their friend. It’ll help you both see past your different prejudices.
Ad hominem
It would be more effective to explain how I’m wrong. But if you can’t right now, I understand. My comments will still be here tomorrow.
Disingenuous
You don’t seem to be in a state of mind for willing absorbtion of information.
Projection
You never offered any information. What evidence suggests I’m not open to it?
In fact, the closest thing to an argument against the idea that anyone made, is that it doesn’t scale well. Which is of course true. But this is about the morality of ways to deal with bigots, not the practically.
Well, I’m glad you at least recognize that your solution to bigotry is not practical. I agree that it’s a moral ideal, but morality to my mind depends at least as much on effect as intention, which is where practicality comes in, and the fact that showing “unearned compassion” to bigots, at least in the way I typically seem to see that interpreted, just emboldens them and makes life worse for everyone else. The most extreme example of this is, as alluded to, Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, but we see the same thing play out on a smaller scale frequently.
Most people who discuss morality with any frequency will probably tell you that whether or not you know the outcome of an action ahead of time does impact its morality. So I would argue, because we know that showing bigots “unearned compassion” rather than societally refusing to tolerate their behavior invariably has a net negative impact on those who are the targets of their bigotry, that would render it not the moral ideal we might like it to be.
Please observe the paradox of tolerance.
I suppose I’m marking a difference between tolerating bigots, and tolerating bigotry. Respecting and accepting people with bigoted ideas, is very different from respecting and accepting the ideas themselves. Part of being a friend, is point out when that friend is being dick. That would still hold true here.
I see your problem.
You don’t believe people when they tell you who they are. You imagine their actions and their beliefs to be separate from the individual even though they are the beliefs and actions of the individual. Your idealism doesn’t reflect reality.
You were never apart from society so you are bound by the social contract by default, failure to uphold the social contract will result in the following violence: being put in the corner, being told ‘no’, spanking, detention, suspension, loss of employment, physical violence, police arrest, incarceration, garnishing of wages, loss of access to social services, etc.
That’s an argument to uphold the analogy of a social contract. Basically arguing it’s it fine to be born into a contract you had no choice in. However, that same logic can be used to justify all sorts of terrible things. It goes all the way back to the bible and earlier: Holding the child responsible for the sins of their father.
It doesn’t however directly address my claim of moral high ground, for using what I call unearned compassion to win over bigots.
This isn’t an argument, it’s a fact. The only way to not be part of the social contract is to remove yourself from society, including all of societies infrastructure. You are obligated to support and work within the rules of the society you are a part of. If you object on moral reasons then you can make your attempts to change your society or which society you are part of through whatever means you have access to.
That is all true, as long as you’re not using it to justify a moral position. Those are all facts. Well… Not the “social contract” phrase. That’s a term of art based on an analogy. But you’re salient point is absolutely a fact, and correct. We do agree on that.
But again, it says nothing against the concept I’m trying to promote and argue here. The most moral way to handle a bigot is with compassion, rather then more hatred.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitlessness of human belligerence.
Not exactly? I don’t think. I think your referring to the belligerence of humanity as a whole. While I’m talking about individual action.
If you personally run across someone bigoted, it would be better for both of you, if you tried to be their friend. It’ll help you both see past your different prejudices.