Consider the View That in a Tolerant Society, No Particular Way of Life Should Be Promoted as Superior
Consider the view that in tolerant society no particular way of life should be promoted as superior.
Many would argue that a tolerant society involves the state being a neutral umpire. This is the idea of a neutral based liberalism and it states that we should not supress, or promote any particular way of life. This is because of the reason for being tolerant in their opinion is because we are fallible humans who will never know the truth and also because moral truth is subjective. First of all there are always going to be different opinions of what is moral truth and different meathods which people use to find it because moral truth can not be proved using empiricm. It is different to proving things like science, we can not use empirical evidence to discover moral truth and therefore there are always going to be disagreements on it. We as humans are fallible, and one way in which we are fallible is that we sometimes think and believe that we are definitely right when in fact we are wrong. This therefore must apply to moral truth. Because we all as humans are imperfect this means that when we believ ourselves to be right about something we could easily be mistaken and infact be wrong. States and majorities, who have the power, are also made up of fallible humans. If a state promoted a particular way of life, it is insinuating that it knows this way of life to be better, it is assuming its own infallibility, because by promoting this particular way of life it is saying that this is the right way to live. As the state is made up fallible humans this could very easily be wrong because we are imperfect and therefore could be mistaken. Therefore it means that this isn’t necessarily the right way to live and that another way which is infact the right way to live is overlooked by so many people because the state is promoting the way in which they believe is best even though they are wrong. Basically by promoting a certain way of life above others, the state is first
Many would argue that a tolerant society involves the state being a neutral umpire. This is the idea of a neutral based liberalism and it states that we should not supress, or promote any particular way of life. This is because of the reason for being tolerant in their opinion is because we are fallible humans who will never know the truth and also because moral truth is subjective. First of all there are always going to be different opinions of what is moral truth and different meathods which people use to find it because moral truth can not be proved using empiricm. It is different to proving things like science, we can not use empirical evidence to discover moral truth and therefore there are always going to be disagreements on it. We as humans are fallible, and one way in which we are fallible is that we sometimes think and believe that we are definitely right when in fact we are wrong. This therefore must apply to moral truth. Because we all as humans are imperfect this means that when we believ ourselves to be right about something we could easily be mistaken and infact be wrong. States and majorities, who have the power, are also made up of fallible humans. If a state promoted a particular way of life, it is insinuating that it knows this way of life to be better, it is assuming its own infallibility, because by promoting this particular way of life it is saying that this is the right way to live. As the state is made up fallible humans this could very easily be wrong because we are imperfect and therefore could be mistaken. Therefore it means that this isn’t necessarily the right way to live and that another way which is infact the right way to live is overlooked by so many people because the state is promoting the way in which they believe is best even though they are wrong. Basically by promoting a certain way of life above others, the state is first