Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

    • Rivalarrival
      1·
      1 year ago

      Depends on the context?!?

      Ok, let’s back up a little further: what does “objective” mean?

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yes. Depends on the context.

        Objective
        /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
        adjective

        (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

        So,remove your feelings and provide the facts I’m requesting so we can get to the objective logical endpoint.

        • Rivalarrival
          1·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for clarifying.

          The Jew is shooting the Nazi because the Jew believes the Nazi is causing harm to the Jew.

          The Nazi is shooting the Jew because the Nazi believes the Jew is causing harm to the Nazi.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            The Jew is shooting the Nazi because the Jew believes the Nazi is causing harm to the Jew.

            Is the Nazi causing the Jew harm beyond the Jew’s personal belief?

            The Nazi is shooting the Jew because the Nazi believes the Jew is causing harm to the Nazi.

            Is the Jew causing the Nazi harm beyond the Nazi’s personal belief?

            • Rivalarrival
              1·
              1 year ago

              I am not sure what exactly you are asking here. I will clarify that these are two separate scenarios: there are a total of four people.

              The Nazi is perforating the Jew’s body with a bullet. There is no question that the Jew is suffering injury from the Nazi’s bullet.

              The Jew is perforating the Nazi’s body with a bullet. There is no question that the Nazi is suffering injury from the Jew’s bullet.

              • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                Yes, I understand the scenario, but the context of intent changes everything.

                Let’s agree that it’s all “physical violence” as defined as: they are both physically damaging each other and causing harm.

                But depending on the context of intent that “physical violence” breaks down into two more nuanced types of physical violence: Defensive Violence and Offensive Violence.

                Defensive Violence can be logically justified, Offensive Violence cannot.

                Edit: If I had answered your question as to what is an objective harmful act, I could have been more specific and clarified Offensive Violence.

                • Rivalarrival
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Generally speaking, I would agree on your characterization of violence.

                  However, I am required to suspend my own feelings and opinions on these scenarios. I realized that I cannot actually answer your last question. I can objectively state that both the Nazi and the Jew were injured, but I am forbidden from saying whether either injury constitutes “harm”.

                  I think I can state that the shooter-Nazi believes his force is defensive, while the injured Jew believes that force was offensive.

                  I think I can state that the shooter-Jew believes his force is defensive, while the injured Nazi believes that same force was offensive.

                  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    Correct, which is why the individual opinion has no bearing on whether something is objective, anything experienced by the individual is purely subjective, it is only with the agreeance of an outside impartial observer that anything can be determined as “real”.

                    So in the given example neither of their opinions are real without external context. We know from history that that context includes Jew’s trying to survive (defensive violence) and Nazi’s trying to kill them (offensive violence) and thus with this external impartial context we can determine that the morality of harm lies in favour of the Jew’s and that the Nazi’s are objectively morally incorrect.

                    Now for the mud. That can only be said of the cohesive group identities and their aligned moralities. To make the same determination for each individual person you need to understand their individual context.

                    The social consciousness understands, as you do, violence bad. But they lack the context and nuanced understanding that comes with asking more specific and just as important questions, which is something that you might have been able to pick up here.

                    Edit: Almost forgot the core point, going back to the original discussion, I think we can now agree that the morality of violence can be objectively determined with adequate context and removed from the opinions of the perpetrators. As such I believe we can most definitely devise a determinate system for the censorship of harm.