First, some terms need to be defined here if this is going
to make any sense.
Bigot: a person
intolerant of those holding different opinions.
Opinion: a view or
judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
For the sake of clarity, let us say that opinions are the sort of thing that
simply cannot be right or wrong. We say, in our opinion, Japanese food is the
best, or we prefer one baseball team over another, or say puppies are cuter
than kittens. Opinions are those things on which we must agree to disagree. For
the most part, they are above criticism.
Are there really any "bigots" according to those
definitions? Maybe, but that usually isn't what people mean when they accuse
others with that word. Now, there are going to be two important distinctions
here. The first is between being intolerant of those [people]
holding different opinions, and being
intolerant of different opinions. The former seems
as ridiculous and childish as maliciously not inviting a kid to your birthday
party because she likes reading books instead of doing ballet. I'm not aware of
any adults that do this, but if there are, we'd call them immature, probably
not a bigot. And the latter just seems annoying and unnecessary, considering
you can't convince someone to like
something.
Then where are all these bigots coming from? I think it
originates from a much deeper issue; one that relegates beliefs to the level of opinion.
Belief: an acceptance
that a statement is true or that something exists.
Beliefs are different from opinions, but the distinction is
often not drawn, so people think they are pretty much the same thing and treat
them the same. Opinion creates a statement that cannot be right or wrong, but
belief receives a statement that is
right or wrong, accepts it, assents to it. The belief itself is right or wrong
depending on whether or not the statement is true or the thing exists. This
goes back to truth: a statement that corresponds to reality is true, while one
that does not correspond to reality is false. If you believe the moon is made
of cheese, your belief is wrong.
What happens most often when people accuse others of being
bigots, they mean (perhaps unintentionally, since beliefs and opinions are
often conflated) this definition: a
person intolerant of different beliefs, and specifically, moral beliefs.
And of course, in the eyes of the accused, those "different"
beliefs are wrong beliefs and they are rightfully opposing them.
But the only reason one would ever want to call someone a bigot is to discredit
them, because they believe they are wrong for
saying something is wrong! This is hypocrisy. One person states the belief that
{a certain other belief validating an action} is wrong, and the other replies
with the belief that {believing something is wrong} is wrong because it is
restrictive.
Yet, a simple charge of hypocrisy here seems to be only a
philosophical quip that does not solve the issue. The concern persists, because
beliefs are seen as equivalent to opinions; an opinion is seen as something
that cannot be right or wrong—any option is legitimate—and this characteristic
is applied to moral beliefs as well. "People have different beliefs,"
they say, as if this tosses the issue up into a suspension that cannot be
criticized. But if this is truly what they mean—that moral beliefs cannot be
right or wrong—this flies in the face of common sense.
If it is true, and in
the end morality is just whatever we want it to be, then any horror can be
justified. Genocide isn't so bad, if the person thinks they're just doing some
much desired "ethnic cleansing." Now when an example like this is
brought up, those who at first protest against "objective morality"—the
idea that moral beliefs can be in reality
right or wrong—are quick to defer to some objective moral standard, usually
something about no apparent harm being done, or, lowering the standard even
more (and thus including self-destructive behavior), consent. It is supposed to
be objectively okay to do anything whatsoever as long as the parties involved
want it. Anything that poses as an obstacle to this is denounced as restrictive
and sought to be removed. It elevates restriction to "objectively
bad" and ironically prescribes restriction as the proper response to it.
But some operate by holding that the objective moral
standard is a bit higher than that. A thing could be wrong even if you wanted
it, even if everyone on the whole planet wanted it. And something that appears
harmless may be in fact horrible, in cutting you short of a much greater good.
It is idealistic and based on teleology and the natures of things, which the
other view conveniently claims do not exist.
Practically speaking, these two views (and others, if they
exist, but these are the ones I've come across most) are mutually exclusive. In
theory, however, the first view should tolerate the second, because those who
hold the second view desire to hold it. And that is the sole basis for
something being acceptable in the first view. But the fact that {the second
view ends up being restrictive of others who hold the first view who do not
wish to be restricted} overrides the desire of those of the second view. It
ends up saying one desire is better and more important than another. And that
is bigotry.
So this is it… if anyone at all believes that morality is
objective, (which most people actually do, lest they become moral monsters)
they are either a bigot with high standards or a bigot with low and vaguely
hypocritical standards. The bigot of this second type might feel very satisfied
in saying, "Of course I'm against intolerance; I'm for tolerance!"
while perhaps ignoring or even proudly accepting the fact that being against
something is itself intolerance. They might have a point, on the surface, if
you don't think about it too much. They are for
people getting to do what they want and against
them not getting to do what they want.
But they are still appealing to this
shaky objective standard of no harm done or consent or whatever, and being
intolerant of a different objective standard. It cannot be that objective
standards in themselves are wrong to hold, for that is self-refuting. In
reality there only is one objective moral
standard, though people might not realize which it is and end up exalting their
own, falsely treating it as the real one. And even if one just simply
"doesn't care," that too is an assent to a lazy ideology stating that
these things do not matter, to the exclusion of any ideology that says they do.
Bigot: a person intolerant of different beliefs.
It's inevitable.
___________
*Definitions from the Google dictionary for "bigot" and the New Oxford American Dictionary for "opinion" and "belief." I would have used the latter dictionary for bigot too but it just said "a person who is bigoted" which really doesn't help.
I really liked this article.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I have seen (on Facebook, particularly, but also in more "anonymous" internet forums), post like, "If you plan to vote for *insert candidate here*, get OFF my friends list.
Pax