Superheroes and Villains: Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
by Christopher Robichaud on December 10, 2008 in Diary of a Mad Ethics Professor
Dear Professor,
Although a large number of us were very pleased recently with the election of Barack Obama, some of us were not. I’ve heard of several instances where McCain supporters here were made to feel ridiculous for their views prior to the election and other instances where their feelings were not taken into account in the post-election celebration that ensued. At an institution that on paper promotes tolerance, it seems many people aren’t really tolerant of opposing viewpoints. But then maybe tolerance is overrated. Is there a moral demand for tolerance? And if so, what should tolerance look like at HKS?
Sincerely,
Troubled About Tolerance
Dear Troubled About Tolerance,
Tolerance is an exciting and complicated attitude to think about. Let’s grant that it’s considered to be a virtue in many cultures, this one among them. What is it, exactly? My first sentence reveals that I like to think about it first and foremost as an attitude, as a mental state of some sort. And from my brief exposure to the literature surrounding tolerance, I’d say it’s a complex attitude arising out of at least two other ones. When Jane Ordinary is tolerating Joe Ordinary’s political views, she possesses an attitude that on the one hand negatively judges Joe’s views. It doesn’t make much sense to tolerate something you already view favorably – I don’t tolerate Batman comics, and that’s simply because I like them. On the other hand, Jane also accepts Joe’s views, despite her negative judgment. If Jane not only disapproves of Joe’s thoughts but also is constantly in his face about them, emphatically expressing her disapproval and not listening to his side of things, then it seems right that there’s no acceptance involved, and hence, no tolerance present.
Finally, what should tolerance specifically look like at HKS? I’ll answer with an example. Last year I stumbled upon two of my students in the Forum. They had just begun and were continuing a heated exchange about who was the better presidential candidate—Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They went back and forth with arguments and counterarguments. It was impressive, passionate, and wholly respectful, and after a bit, they looked at me and said they needed to pause the discussion in order to work on a group project. And off they went, positive and supportive, to work together. That strikes me as what tolerance should look like at HKS.
But if that, very roughly, is what tolerance is, why is it a good thing? One thing that seems obvious is that tolerance towards everything is unwarranted. I do not believe we are morally required to tolerate the beliefs of neo-Nazis. That said, I do think we are obligated to cultivate a tolerant attitude towards many people who disagree with us about politics, or religion, or morality more broadly. Where to draw the line is a difficult matter to which I don’t have a good answer. But the mandate for tolerance comes from what I take to be a healthy intellectual humility. We should know, at this stage in our lives, that there is reasonable disagreement to be had over a wide variety of matters that are important to us. The disagreement is not so much over the facts – although sometimes that’s where the dispute focuses – but over our assessment and evaluation of the facts, over the normative conclusions we choose to draw from them.
If that’s even close to being right, then I think it’s perfectly appropriate for folks at HKS to be devout partisans, but to rein in some of the intolerant tendencies that might stem from such partisanship. Passion about politics is good, but not when it leads to intellectual arrogance. And the reason that’s worrisome to me is that intellectual arrogance prohibits us from entering into the kind of exchange of ideas that I think is necessary to arrive at the truth, elusive as it may be.
So, in short, tolerance is good in part because it stems from intellectual humility. And intellectual humility is good because it partly fosters the examination of ideas needed to arrive at the political, metaphysical and moral truths we all seek.
Comments
Got something to say?
