First of all, the terms being thrown about – tolerance, discrimination, prejudice – were not clearly defined by any of these three people. They kept saying that discrimination and prejudice are bad and that we need tolerance. They seem to assume that these definitions are universal. The cultural battles about homosexuality, abortion and the “separation of Church and State” should be sufficient proof that they are not.

Taken at their basic level, discrimination and prejudice are actually not inherently evil. Discrimination simply means to be aware of differences. One of the letters to the editor said that discrimination is bad, but that we should learn to appreciate the differences. Actually, if discrimination was bad then we should learn to ignore the differences. Of course, then our lives would become bland. Maybe discrimination – properly defined and understood – isn’t so bad after all.

Prejudice defined simply means to judge before the fact. It is commonly used in our culture to indicate judging a person based on superficial experience with him or her before you really get to know the person. In this case, prejudice could certainly be considered a vice. However, prejudice understood more generally is actually unavoidable. The human brain is too efficient not to begin to immediately form ideas, perceptions and judgments before all information is collected. In many cases, this cognitive process saves us time and effort and can be very necessary. What we need to take care about is to make sure our first judgments about human persons are flexible, open to reinterpretation as we gain more knowledge, and not damaging to the person.

Finally, tolerance tends to be the key “virtue” of post-modernism. However, you will rarely hear an attempt to truly define the concept. What exactly are we supposed to tolerate? If what we mean by tolerance is the intellectual virtue of intellectual fairness – listening to opposing arguments with a mind open to the possibility of being convinced if the evidence supports them – then great. If we mean respecting the person with whom we argue, then great. However, the way the term is used by post-modernists seems to be much more accepting any idea whether supported by evidence or not. This is because post-modernism does not believe that truth can be truly known, and certainly cannot be proven through evidence. To believe in this kind tolerance is not only mistaken, it is downright dangerous precisely because it fails to define what exactly should be tolerated. Its logical conclusion is the acceptance of suicide and murder, as indeed we have seen with the cultural acceptance of “euthanasia” and “abortion.”

What all three of the expressions in favor of “tolerance” are really searching for is charity and respect of human dignity. Charity means willing the good of the other person over your own good. However, charity also assumes that there is an authentic, objectively knowable good that you want to will the other person. If we treated each other with charity, we would seek that truth together in an honest way. Further, respect for human dignity would ensure that intellectual fairness was followed, and that we argue the issue without attacking the person. For example, Catholics are called to respect the human dignity of homosexuals, indeed to love these people, but no to accept the idea that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that homosexual sex is morally acceptable. We can disagree on the ideas while respecting the person, all the while seeking what is truly good for them in honest and open dialogue.

The irony is that post-modernists criticize and despise the very concepts that would offer what is most commonly sought by the lay person echoing the language of tolerance. Human dignity is considered an antiquated and unfounded concept (unfounded because post-modernists reject the foundations, not because there is no actual foundation for it). Charity is considered an impossible and therefore guilt-producing ideal.

So much is staked on the proper use of words. To blindly proselytize about the evils of discrimination and prejudice and the value of tolerance is ultimately to sacrifice any claim to objective truth and authentic dialogue. In the end, it would result in the refusal to hold any morality as universally binding and in avoiding any debate over what is true. Words do matter.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.