What Moral Obligations Do We Have to Be Tolerant - Assignment Example

MORAL TOLERANCE Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date What moral obligations do we have to be tolerant of the practices of other people when those practices seem to us to be immoral? Introduction Every individual person thinks of himself or herself as a unique individual with his or her personal view, penchant, behaviour and idiosyncrasies. The truth is that each one of us is unique in their own right but it is not hard to find some people who share many or some of our philosophies, beliefs and customs (Driver 2001). For instance, people from a particular place a country perhaps, may share a common repulsion against eating dogs, or they may have the belief that bacteria and viruses cause illness and have a habit of sleeping on a bed. Our behaviours are what constitute practice and a time comes when we begin to realize that other people have different behaviours from ours. We might for instance never think of eating the meat of a dog, if we had not become aware of the fact that some people do so (Smith 1994). The same thing applies to other people; they might not realize that there was another way of doing something or be aware of a certain practice unless they get to learn how other people do it. Comparison can therefore be said to be the source of differences and similarities that we observe in the practices of other people on a day to day basis (Darwall 2006). And in this comparison lies the question of whether we have a moral duty to tolerate other people’s practices even if we don’t agree with them. Teachers of moral development have often said that, being moral necessitates that we gain adequate social growth to be able to accept our liability for behaving in accordance with ways that are agreed upon within our own social groupings, and at the same time having the capacity and enough cognitive development to enable us to place ourselves in another person’s shoes (Wallace 2007). This paper will seek to answer the question of whether we have any moral obligation to tolerate the practices of other people even when they may appear to be immoral to us. Discussion Times have changed and so have people. Some of the greatest changes in life have taken place in the areas of mannerisms that we have towards marriage and sex and changing roles of men and women in society and generally, men have a tendency to alter their behaviours and mannerisms in accordance with changes in their needs (Darwall 2006). Behavioural practices touches on every aspect of our lives not just the parts that we consider to be desirable. We don’t have bad practices or good practices; rather we have social norms that define our behaviour in the context of our backgrounds specifically cultural ones (Darwall 2011). Behaviour consists of not only what people do but the way they think and feel as well. Behaviour constitutes viewpoints, morals, mannerisms, and principles that are special to a particular social grouping or a specific society, but if a single person does a particular thing or acts in a certain way then that is a representation of an individual behaviour (Darwall 2007). Many of the early Europeans travellers often came across practices that astonished them. Such reaction to the practices of other people is not wrong, but many are the times when we tend to feel that our own practices are the right ones and that the people who don’t adhere to the same practices as us are morally wrong and/or mediocre (Driver 2001). Likewise, other people may think the same about us. But what is or own moral obligations when it comes to what other people practice and whether we agreed with it or not? The fact is that we all have our own logical ways of thinking, prejudiced self-defensive judgments, individual poignant desires, and even insentient aspects (Thompson 2004). Tolerance is key when it comes to harmonious living in society, regardless of whether we accept other people’s practices or not, and gaining true insight into other peoples practices is one of our moral obligations when it comes to tolerance. Many are the times we (Darwall 2010)judge other people’s practices based on our own not bearing in mind that there is always another side of the story. In Cultural studies this is referred to as ethnocentrism. The golden Rule Religion has for many years been seen as the only source of morals and values, but that according to Kohn (1989) might not be the case because values according to him were in existence long before religion came into existence, and besides various studies have failed to provide any substantive evidence to the effect that religious people are more charitable, supportive, thoughtful and affectionate than people who are not religious. The so called Golden rule could therefore be the answer to the question that this paper is seeking to answer because according to research, it is the utmost decree when it comes to life and is a major part of many religions. Below are two variations of the Golden Rule: General phraseology: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In religious groups: Jesus Christ: Therefore, whatever things that you desire that other men should do to you, you should also do the same things to them (Mathew 7:12) Judaism: Love your neighbor in the same way as you love yourself (Leviticus 19:18) Islam: No one amongst you is a believer unless he wishes for his brother to have the same thing that he wishes for himself. Confucianism: whatever thing you would not like to be done to you, don’t do it to other people (Analects 15:23). Buddhism: Do not hurt other people with things that you might consider as hurtful to yourself (Udanavarga 5:18) Hinduism: Excellent people, as you continue put into consideration the fact that what is best for others is best for themselves (Hitopadesa). Secular groups: Humanists: Each individual has self-respect and value. Therefore, he/she deserves to be respected by every other person. Communist motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” Indian Saying: Do not pass judgment on other people unless you know where there shoe hurts most The golden rule could be said to be the total sum of tolerance to the behaviors of others. It says that we should treat other people as we would like them to treat us. In other words, see, hear, and say no evil. Cultural studies seem to support this idea by the fact that they advocate that the behaviors of other people and even their traditions, and thoughts should be depicted in a manner that is objective and that they should be understood in the context of those people’s problems and opportunities in what has come to be known as relativism (Darwall 2011). But does this mean that other people’s practices or even our own are not supposed to be judged”. Does it mean that we should not make any moral related judgments about what we see in the way others behave? What about change? One may ask? It is not all practices that we observe in people that are legitimate. Let’s consider for instance a person who is violent towards women, or someone who likes to torture other people. Let’s consider a situation where genocide has or is about to occur due to practices of specific people. Are we supposed to practice tolerance when it comes to such behaviors? In accordance with strong relativism, we are not supposed to interfere, judge or eliminate these behaviors (Griswol 2007). But there is a weaker side to relativism which says that we should always seek to describe the behaviors of other people in a manner that is objective and that we should also stay away from making hasty decisions in an effort to understand the reason behind their behaviors (Watsons 2009). Tolerance should be fundamental in this issue unless there is enough reason not to be tolerant. For instance, practices that threaten life should not be tolerated. An even weaker version of relativism has stated passing judgment on the practices of other people or to try and change the behavior of other people that we consider detrimental is not wrong at all, but the judgments that we pass should be within a precise and accurate depiction and justification (Raz 2002). Conclusion This paper has analyzed the question of whether we have a moral obligation when it comes to the practices of other people whether we agree with them or not. The paper has established that we do have an obligation to some extend considering that we also conform to certain practices that might not necessarily be appealing to other people but which we would expect other people to respect and not interfere with because they are either deep-rooted in our cultures or they might be part of the values that we acquired from our parents that we hold dear. The paper has also looked at the issue from the viewpoint of cultural relativism which as we have seen has different view regarding the subject namely; a strong view which says that we must not interfere in the practices of other regardless of how we feel, a weaker view which says that we should to some extend tolerate other peoples practices and an even weaker one which states that there is nothing wrong in passing judgment on the practices of others. The Golden rule has summed it for us as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. List of References Darwall, S, 2006, The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Darwall, S, 2007, Moral Obligation and Accountability, In R. Shafer-Landau, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Darwall, S, 2010, But It Would Be Wrong,” in Moral Obligation, Cambridges: Cambridge University Pres. Darwall, S, 2011, Demystifying Promises, In P. a. Philosophical, Sheinman, H. (ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Driver, J, 2001, Uneasy Virtues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griswold, C, 2007, Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohn, M, 1989, Class and conformity : a study in value, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raz, J, 2002, Practical Reason and Norm, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, M, 1994, The moral Problem, Oxford: Blackwell. Thompson, M, 2004, What Is It To Wrong Someone?: A Puzzle About Justice, In J. Raz, Reason and Value: Themes from the Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wallace, R, 2007, Reasons, Relations, and Commands, Ethics Vol 118 , 24-36. Watson, G, 2009, Promises, Reasons, and Normative Powers, In Reasons for Action, David S.& Steven W, pp. 55-178, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More