By Ellie Haylund
As humanists navigating a polarized society, our empathy and understanding can be pushed to its limits. We know that allowing others to exercise their freedoms and beliefs is acceptable and tolerable so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights and well-being of others.
If someone’s beliefs do not align with yours but do not harm you or others, “agree to disagree” is typically doable. And if they do harm you or others, “agree to disagree” is rightfully untenable.
But what about the gray area? When other people’s worldviews — and perceptions of others — conflict with yours but are not actively harmful to anyone? Where do humanists draw the line when it comes to “live and let live”? How do we maintain relationships and connections when our differences are on the borderline?
I’ll spoil the ending and say that I don’t have an answer to this question. It’s obviously personal to each individual even among like-minded people, and is a wholly different consideration when you think about public advocacy versus interpersonal relationships. But it’s interesting to consider it from a humanistic perspective.
When it comes to doing the right thing, as stated on the HumanistsMN website, “We measure our actions by how well they address human needs, reduce suffering, enhance human flourishing, and ensure the health of the planet. Humanists believe all humans have moral agency; we must learn … how best to live together in harmony through ethical reasoning and civic engagement.” So when we, for example, have someone important in our lives who does not align with these values, but is passive about it, how do we decide what that relationship looks like? Accept and move on, try to reason with them, cut off communication?
I see a lot these days about politics being the source of estrangement and degraded relationships. And it makes sense — we are grappling with heavy subjects that deeply impact the humanity and livelihood of others — particularly marginalized groups. It’s one thing to brush off a relative’s questionable views about, say, the budget deficit, but it’s not so easy when they deny the existence of trans people or advocate for the destruction of reproductive rights.
Some might say that the mere presence of an intolerant opinion makes it too divisive to maintain a relationship — that if someone views the world differently from you, it’s insurmountable. Others may feel that cutting someone out of their life would only be called for if the person acted on those opinions. But this gets murky very quickly — isn’t simply voting for a candidate who supports intolerant legislation an active expression of those opinions?
Consider the paradox of tolerance. Proposed by philosopher Karl Popper, it posits that “if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance; thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.” Popper’s view was that to maintain a tolerant society, we must allow for the denial of tolerance to those who encourage intolerance. Others say that unquestioning tolerance is imperative to preserve social harmony.
So as humanists, are we obligated to “agree to disagree”? To tolerate the intolerant? Or does the paradox more appropriately align with our tenets — that such toleration begets more intoleration? How do we best approach these precarious relationships with our humanistic compassion and reason?
As I said, I have no clear answer. If you believe that passively holding bigoted or hateful views is in fact actively harmful, cannot be tolerated, and is grounds for the dissolution of a relationship, that tracks with a humanistic approach.
If you believe that no harm is done unless those views are acted upon, and that agreeing to disagree is the right approach for you and society, there can be humanistic merits there as well. As people trying to be good and do good, we must remember to acknowledge our unique lives and relationships, our fallibility, and do what we think is right.
Ellie Haylund is president of HumanistsMN.
2 comments
Question the opposing side to get at the reasoning behind their position. If a fallacy can be found, they may change their position. If not, perhaps one should reconsider their own position.
Thank you for these words, Ellie! You are right- this is not a simple question with a simple answer, partly because we interact with many people in our lives.
And as Paul Keller commented, we each need to evaluate our own positions and try not to be rigid.
This is also a difficult situation because we are emotional beings and many of our views are based on emotions, not logic. We each have varying experiences in life that lead us to our current place and viewpoint.