Embracing moral objectivism entails intolerance. t/f
The Correct answer and Explanation is:
Answer: False
Embracing moral objectivism does not necessarily entail intolerance. Moral objectivism is the view that there are objective moral standards—moral truths that hold universally, regardless of individual beliefs, cultural norms, or subjective perspectives. However, this viewpoint can coexist with tolerance, which is the acceptance or respect for different beliefs or practices, even when one disagrees with them.
Explanation:
Moral objectivism holds that certain actions are right or wrong, independent of personal or societal opinions. For example, an objectivist might argue that actions like murder or theft are universally wrong. This does not mean, however, that those who hold objectivist beliefs are automatically intolerant of other people or their views.
Tolerance, in contrast, is an attitude that allows for the coexistence of differing viewpoints. It involves respecting individuals’ rights to hold and express their beliefs, even if one strongly disagrees with them. Importantly, tolerance does not require agreement with or endorsement of those beliefs. A person can maintain objective moral standards while still being open to dialogue and respecting others’ freedom to hold different views.
The key distinction is that moral objectivism speaks to the existence of universal moral truths, while intolerance refers to an unwillingness to allow others to hold differing beliefs. The two are not inherently linked. A moral objectivist can recognize the existence of moral truth but still advocate for respectful engagement with those who hold different or even incorrect moral views. In fact, many moral objectivists argue that tolerance itself is a moral good, to be upheld unless it leads to harm or injustice.
In conclusion, moral objectivism focuses on the nature of morality, while tolerance is about how we engage with others’ beliefs. Therefore, one can embrace moral objectivism without being intolerant.