Tolerance is a moral or ethic, not a contract. Like other aspects of morality, it continues to apply to people who violate it, otherwise it would be legitimate to, e.g., lie to a liar, steal from a thief or, indeed, to murder a murderer.
If you don’t believe those responses are legitimate, you have to construct an argument as to why tolerance is a special case among the other morals.
If someone steals my bike I would totally steal it back, and depending on where you live they execute murderers. I don’t think it needs to be a special case.
The only difference between them is society is ok with one and dislikes the other. That’s the whole point. If “stealing” your own bike isn’t stealing, then rejecting the intolerant isn’t intolerance.
What counts aa morals seem to fall into two categories. Spiritually enforced dogma or morality sourced from a central premise of what behaviours we adhere to in making a society better to live in. Spiritual dogma is difficult to argue with because you have something supposedly above society that straight up dictates something that must be followed. The consideration places those morals in an untouchable space for those who believe… The second form often is more flexible and covers a lot of smaller infractions and changes with society, technology and so on.
Take littering. Littering is something I argue our modern society considers immoral. If you’ve ever witnessed someone throw something on the ground deliberately and walk away your reaction might be disgust because it violates an idea of mutual responsibility to make society a nicer place to be and it is a disrespect toward that social construct. A majority of persons sign onto that that is an unacceptable behaviour and shows a lack of morals.
Social contract when violated isn’t always responded to in exact kind because reciprocating often undermines the idea that those behaviours make things worse for everyone. Hence if someone litters, steals or murders someone we either fine them or lock them up as punishment because they voided a social contract which has been further codified into law.
For things that the law cannot be used as a tool to stop it’s more of a wild west. If someone dumps all the leaves they rake up in their yard over your fence then people won’t object if you do the same or slightly worse back to them. The initial slight is considered the immoral one that we click our tongues in disgust over but the equal response to it might elicit a laugh and a clap on the back.
You’re confusing at least three things: law, social contract and morality. They’re related but they’re not the same.
Not all crimes violate the social contract but, where they do, punishing them fulfils the social contract. At the same time, either the crime or the punishment may be immoral, but also may not be. They interact, but they’re not identical.
I don’t believe I have those confused but it seems to me you did. Morality is the concept of right and wrong along with a kind of focus about a person’s " goodness" or “badness” of character that underlies their behavior. Law is at some level meant to enforce the spirit of this by codifying it into a structure of deterrent and reciprocation that a society (or the powerful within society) agree is fair. Laws however are made by controlling interests which themselves may not be paragons and may weild the law in ways that quite frankly are immoral to benefit certain segments of society. Laws are just tools and “what exactly is the law” is it’s own rabbit hole.
The social contract is the nebulous bit in between. Because law at some level requires some level of enforcement it’s kind of patchy in its application. The social contract is the sort of web of what is considered moral and what is acceptable to deter or reciprocate immoral behaviour on an interpersonal level.
But the question of “why is it okay to be nasty to bigots” is a social contract question. “Why don’t we steal from theives or murder murderers” is more of a culture and law question. If you go back 200 years law officials killed people for stealing things because deterrent was over favored over something more like our modern concept of proportional punishment. People generally don’t have to concern themselves with social contract questions when they have an authority to call on to do the punishment for them provided they ageee authority’s punishment is considered fair.
Tolerance is a moral or ethic, not a contract. Like other aspects of morality, it continues to apply to people who violate it, otherwise it would be legitimate to, e.g., lie to a liar, steal from a thief or, indeed, to murder a murderer.
If you don’t believe those responses are legitimate, you have to construct an argument as to why tolerance is a special case among the other morals.
If someone steals my bike I would totally steal it back, and depending on where you live they execute murderers. I don’t think it needs to be a special case.
Neither of your counter examples works. ‘Stealing’ your bike back isn’t stealing; execution isn’t murder, even if you agree with it.
The only difference between them is society is ok with one and dislikes the other. That’s the whole point. If “stealing” your own bike isn’t stealing, then rejecting the intolerant isn’t intolerance.
No, stealing your own bike just is not stealing. It’s yours. By definition, you cannot steal something that belongs to you.
That’s what I said. You are trying to be confusing, but only confusing yourself.
No, the equivalent to your suggestion would be to argue that, by stealing, you waive your own property rights. Manifestly, this is not the case.
I’d be happy to continue this conversation with you if you can do so politely.
What counts aa morals seem to fall into two categories. Spiritually enforced dogma or morality sourced from a central premise of what behaviours we adhere to in making a society better to live in. Spiritual dogma is difficult to argue with because you have something supposedly above society that straight up dictates something that must be followed. The consideration places those morals in an untouchable space for those who believe… The second form often is more flexible and covers a lot of smaller infractions and changes with society, technology and so on.
Take littering. Littering is something I argue our modern society considers immoral. If you’ve ever witnessed someone throw something on the ground deliberately and walk away your reaction might be disgust because it violates an idea of mutual responsibility to make society a nicer place to be and it is a disrespect toward that social construct. A majority of persons sign onto that that is an unacceptable behaviour and shows a lack of morals.
Social contract when violated isn’t always responded to in exact kind because reciprocating often undermines the idea that those behaviours make things worse for everyone. Hence if someone litters, steals or murders someone we either fine them or lock them up as punishment because they voided a social contract which has been further codified into law.
For things that the law cannot be used as a tool to stop it’s more of a wild west. If someone dumps all the leaves they rake up in their yard over your fence then people won’t object if you do the same or slightly worse back to them. The initial slight is considered the immoral one that we click our tongues in disgust over but the equal response to it might elicit a laugh and a clap on the back.
You’re confusing at least three things: law, social contract and morality. They’re related but they’re not the same.
Not all crimes violate the social contract but, where they do, punishing them fulfils the social contract. At the same time, either the crime or the punishment may be immoral, but also may not be. They interact, but they’re not identical.
I don’t believe I have those confused but it seems to me you did. Morality is the concept of right and wrong along with a kind of focus about a person’s " goodness" or “badness” of character that underlies their behavior. Law is at some level meant to enforce the spirit of this by codifying it into a structure of deterrent and reciprocation that a society (or the powerful within society) agree is fair. Laws however are made by controlling interests which themselves may not be paragons and may weild the law in ways that quite frankly are immoral to benefit certain segments of society. Laws are just tools and “what exactly is the law” is it’s own rabbit hole.
The social contract is the nebulous bit in between. Because law at some level requires some level of enforcement it’s kind of patchy in its application. The social contract is the sort of web of what is considered moral and what is acceptable to deter or reciprocate immoral behaviour on an interpersonal level.
But the question of “why is it okay to be nasty to bigots” is a social contract question. “Why don’t we steal from theives or murder murderers” is more of a culture and law question. If you go back 200 years law officials killed people for stealing things because deterrent was over favored over something more like our modern concept of proportional punishment. People generally don’t have to concern themselves with social contract questions when they have an authority to call on to do the punishment for them provided they ageee authority’s punishment is considered fair.