When in Rome, do as the Romans do. We've all heard that advice. If we're talking about following the age-old Italian practice of eating salad after the main course, Doing as the Romans do is fine, but if some present-day Romans want to resurrect the ancient Roman practice of Dematio ad bestius, in which criminals and other deviants were fed to the lions, it would be irrational to follow that cruel practice just because it's what the Romans at one time did. We used to think that people of different skin colors, specifically African Americans, were... they didn't have the IQ capability as, say, Caucasians.
All of these things that we pointed to as hard facts in science were really just things we made up. Relativism is the belief that all it takes to make some potentially harmful act right is the individual's or group's claim that it is right. You can tell that someone is being a relativist when you hear, who am I to judge, or I can't tell another person what's right for her. When people say it's not okay to judge someone else or judge a specific culture's practice by outside standards, they are practicing relativism. And they're generally not thinking very deeply about what that means.
There is more than one right way to live one's life, and that's where the relativists are on the right track. Tolerance is indeed a virtue. But we can allow for a wide range of ethically permitted behaviors and still agree... that some actions are wrong.
That's to say, ethically prohibited. The problem of being a relativist, if the relativists are consistent, is that they can never make moral judgments about another person's or group's actions. And human beings just don't function that way. Children having bruises. A parent could be a little more liberal in letting their child play around outside.
But I think for you to err and say maybe they're being abused and just look into it is a better safe than sorry scenario. I think it's totally okay to be judgmental in that case. It's human nature to protect ourselves and our loved ones from being caused harm.
How would you respond if someone stole your sister's smartphone, broke into your house, or even held you prisoner just because they wanted to? It's unlikely that you would uphold that person's right to do what he felt was right for him. So we all make moral judgments. But the problem is that we often do it inconsistently.
A gunman opening fire in a movie theater? That's simply wrong. Terrorists blowing up school buildings on the other side of the world? Awful.
Immoral. It's wrong to cause innocent people pain and death, regardless of mental illness or the point that the terrorists are trying to make. When you think about being tolerant for something very egregious, like someone getting killed or flogged publicly, that's certainly not a case.
I think that if someone was being tolerant, then they're just being naive and just not thinking about the situation when really they should step in and do something about it so that that harm isn't being done. Oh, well, I will tolerate. I will tolerate. homosexuals or I will tolerate black people I will tolerate I will tolerate you know rapists so where do we draw the line with quote-unquote tolerance Different cultures can have different customs, such as when it's proper to serve the salad course or how to honor religious beliefs. But when we move into the realm of ethics, we have to follow some universal rules, like do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The right for life. The right for ownership of your own body, the right for freedom of speech, the right to be happy, the right to help others. Typically, when people make relativistic claims, it's likely that they're actually promoting pluralism and not relativism. Yeah. Whereas relativism is tolerance to a fault, pluralism...
is tolerance at its best. Pluralists believe that everyone should have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit, just as long as they don't cross the boundary of causing unjustified harm to other people. A pluralist embraces diversity and respects all cultures, traditions, and religious beliefs, but would stop short of condoning extremist actions done in their name. So, live and let live is a fine philosophy, as long as it's accompanied by clear judgments that causing unjustified harm is simply wrong for everyone.
So there should always be a line that, yes, everybody should be tolerant. But not to the extent that people can get away with anything. You don't know someone's path and the choices that they make in their situation.
You weren't there in that moment. But I'm not going to say it's not your place to judge, you know, and you're entitled to. If you live in a cooperative living, if you live in a world in which your actions and the actions of other people have effects on you and everybody around you, you will be judgmental.
Even though we might say that we don't, we're human. We judge. It's a part of being a human being. It doesn't make it right.
It doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it a part of life and a part of human existence.