Independence and Tolerance

The 4th of July reminds us of the stirring words, deeds and thoughts upon which the United States of America was founded and forged. The crux and the crucible is in all being created equal in the eyes of our creator. We celebrate Independence Day for the enunciation of the core principle upon which we’re based and blessed, and which has been echoed around the world since.

That principle is extended by some to mean that we all, therefore, are deserving of equal outcomes, regardless of merit or effort, which is the basic dividing line in most political policy debates. Underlying that distinction is a both more practical and, at the same time, more philosophical question: How far should tolerance extend? And, underlying that is the ultimate question for philosophers: Is there objective reality, or is reality just relative to each?

If reality is subjective, then all individuals’ realities must be tolerated. However, if there are objective truths, then there are limits to tolerance.

Bertrand Russell piqued the limit of tolerance by asking whether intolerance of those not tolerant is itself intolerance. The answer must be yes, at least if tolerance is taken as the ultimate principle.

But, tolerance is not the ultimate principle. Openness does not mean vacuity or lack of distinction, unless it becomes meaningless to think or, more practically, have experience. Further, to fail to act upon experience is to deny both its existence and to deny the essence of being human in having volition of thought that, in turn, requires consonant action in living.

Independence is the ultimate principle, and its most basic application is that enslavement by others is intolerable, not only because of its immediate effects but, also, because it denies the equality of earning individual advancement and enhancement of conditions.

Judea Pearl, father of Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded by terrorists, is a world recognized leader in the study of causality. He has struggled to apply his rigor of thinking to the meaning of his son’s death. He differentiates between a religion and its adherents, Islam, and some of its members whose extreme behavior is a modern scourge. That upsets others who trace a connection between the teachings and history of application of those teachings with the present actions of its extreme elements. It’s a difficult distinction, especially when in modern asymmetric warfare the extremists swim in a sea that, by numerous polls, has 10-60%%, depending on country, supportive of extremists’ actions. But, nonetheless, the distinction must be made, as experience also shows us that elimination of the extremists – requiring armed confrontation -- relegates the underlying hostility to a level of danger that is not applied or is manageable without resort to arms, although certainly not to benignity or benevolence.

Judea Pearl chose to accept the relativity in Steven Spielberg’s 2005 film, treating the Munich murderers as having a point, because his inner reflections still drew the distinction between relative realities and the necessity of action against brutal terrorists.

The depiction of the violence and senseless brutality of the Munich massacre will convince even devout skeptics that civilized society must exercise all available means to protect itself against the planet's latest evil, terrorism.

Among those means, the concept of "bringing to justice" is a moral imperative that society has taken very seriously in the past, for it expresses and reaffirms society's commitment to live by principles, not whims. …

FILM-GOERS may be taken aback by shallow political discussions on the causes of Palestinian terrorism, which imply, albeit tacitly, that targeted killings of innocent human beings may be justified if done for transmitting messages of genuine grievance.

To be sure, it is not Spielberg's attempt to give terrorists understandable motivation that may make viewers bristle, nor his depiction of terrorism as an act of desperation. On the contrary, by giving terrorists rationale Spielberg makes their acts so much more threatening and widely applicable. Positioning the Munich murderers as people driven by perceived injustice only makes their inhumanity more credible, and the basis for their perception less plausible.

Yet what was unbearable are attempts in the film to stretch common sense by drawing symmetries between the terrorists and their pursuers. Since violence leads to more violence, so the film's logic goes, it must be that all acts of violence are somehow morally equivalent….

Judea Pearl’s closer connection to the brutal murder of his son results in less acceptance of the treatment of that event in the current film Mighty Heart. Writing a review in The New Republic Pearl points out: (free subscription login):

The political lesson of Russell's paradox is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance. Ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain groups or ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally linked to tolerance and inclusivity. One should, in fact, condemn and resist political doctrines that advocate the murder of innocents, that undermine the basic norms of civilization, or that seek to make pluralism impossible. There can be no moral equivalence between those who seek--however clumsily--to build a more liberal, tolerant world and those who advocate the annihilation of other faiths, cultures, or states….

I am worried that A Mighty Heart falls into a trap Bertrand Russell would have recognized: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantánamo--it opens with pictures from the prison--and its comparison of Al Qaeda militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote on The Washington Post's website that A Mighty Heart and his previous film The Road to Guantánamo "are very similar. Both are stories about people who are victims of increasing violence on both sides. There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."…

There can be no comparison between those who take pride in the killing of an unarmed journalist and those who vow to end such acts--no ifs, ands, or buts. Moral relativism died with Daniel Pearl, in Karachi, on January 31, 2002.

There was a time when drawing moral symmetries between two sides of every conflict was a mark of original thinking. Today, with Western intellectuals overextending two-sidedness to reckless absurdities, it reflects nothing but lazy conformity. What is needed now is for intellectuals, filmmakers, and the rest of us to resist this dangerous trend and draw legitimate distinctions where such distinctions are warranted….

Some may argue that they can only or most affect American actions, as their rationalization for focus upon these to the downplaying or ignoring the actions of our adversaries. That plays right into the explicit propaganda strategy of our foes, by hobbling our will and execution. They may not be tolerant of the intolerable aims and actions of our sworn enemies, but the – by now unavoidable – truth of the matter is that their one-sided relativity goes beyond tolerance to active and knowing abetment.

Some may argue that they are being independent in their judgments, as their rationalization for their focus on American policy and practice, or relativity in considering the nature or scope of our actions and those of our enemies. That, also, plays right into the explicit propaganda strategy of our foes, by confusing independence with lack of insight and knowledge.

If independence means anything any more on Independence Day, then it must be the clear and guiding realization that the intolerable is not tolerable, and will not be tolerated. Relativity is not tolerance. Relativity, instead, undermines thoughtful, informed and realistic tolerance and, indeed, survival.