Tolerance spheres - who's responsibility to respect these?
Another incoherent comment on a YB post. click on the link above to see what he was talking about.
========================================
An Abdication of personal responsibility ?
By justifying righteous indignation through the idea that many others also think so on an issue, we then begin to give up our personal responsibility to form our own coherent opinion and stand on the issue. It is much easier for one to agree with the 'mob'.
The problem is of differing tolerence spheres. Everyone has a sphere of beliefs and opinions about all sorts of things (learnt, taught, or indoctrinated); These tolerence spheres frequently come into contact with other peoples', and when there is a conflict, the need to resolve the conflict becomes the crux on whether the issue becomes incendiary or quietly resolved.
Looking at YB's 2 examples, the sphere for tolerating smoking has been continuously expandedthrough frequent health warnings, and reinforced by the smoking ban on public places (which is vaguely worded if anything).
Looking at the intent behind that law, one can also ask, was the intent to punish smokers caught for smoking in public places, or to remind smokers to not infringe on non-smokers' tolerence spheres.
Which brings us back to the question of personal responsibility or the lack of it, and who should bear more responsibility - the smoker at the bus stop irresponsible about respecting other non-smokers, or the non-smokers needing to remind the smoker that he is dissing their tolerence spheres.
We all want a kinder, gentler society. We all seek the civility that society seems to be losing more of everyday. It all comes down to each of us respecting the existence of another human being - without which, it would just be plain darwinism and the law of the jungle at work.
Just keep that in mind when you next do something without thinking. You could be contributing to uncivilization.
E.o.M.
========================================
An Abdication of personal responsibility ?
By justifying righteous indignation through the idea that many others also think so on an issue, we then begin to give up our personal responsibility to form our own coherent opinion and stand on the issue. It is much easier for one to agree with the 'mob'.
The problem is of differing tolerence spheres. Everyone has a sphere of beliefs and opinions about all sorts of things (learnt, taught, or indoctrinated); These tolerence spheres frequently come into contact with other peoples', and when there is a conflict, the need to resolve the conflict becomes the crux on whether the issue becomes incendiary or quietly resolved.
Looking at YB's 2 examples, the sphere for tolerating smoking has been continuously expandedthrough frequent health warnings, and reinforced by the smoking ban on public places (which is vaguely worded if anything).
Looking at the intent behind that law, one can also ask, was the intent to punish smokers caught for smoking in public places, or to remind smokers to not infringe on non-smokers' tolerence spheres.
Which brings us back to the question of personal responsibility or the lack of it, and who should bear more responsibility - the smoker at the bus stop irresponsible about respecting other non-smokers, or the non-smokers needing to remind the smoker that he is dissing their tolerence spheres.
We all want a kinder, gentler society. We all seek the civility that society seems to be losing more of everyday. It all comes down to each of us respecting the existence of another human being - without which, it would just be plain darwinism and the law of the jungle at work.
Just keep that in mind when you next do something without thinking. You could be contributing to uncivilization.
E.o.M.
posted by KiWeTO at 4:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home