The Virtue Ethics Approach to Resolving the Paradox of Intolerance
In the quest to address the paradox of intolerance, virtue ethics presents a potential solution by proposing a model of discourse that allows for the possibility of welcoming back those who were previously excluded. This model emphasizes the importance of preserving hope, even if it may seem faint, that intolerant individuals can learn from their actions and change their character for the better. In contrast to simply acting as gatekeepers, those engaged in the conversation should adopt the role of educators, guiding the intolerant towards a more virtuous path.
Virtue ethics assumes that every individual, even those deemed to be the worst among us, has the capacity to transform themselves by abandoning their habits of intolerance and finding a more worthwhile way of life. It acknowledges that people can change if they genuinely desire to do so and are presented with a better alternative. This perspective is rooted in the belief that virtue is not static, and personal growth and transformation are attainable for everyone.
However, while virtue ethics offers a hopeful approach to resolving the paradox of intolerance, critical questions arise that require further examination. One such question is: whose responsibility is it to educate the intolerant? In this model, it becomes essential for those already engaged in the conversation to take on the role of educators. The emphasis is on patiently guiding the intolerant towards understanding the detrimental effects of their actions and helping them realize that intolerance is not a path to a good and worthwhile life. However, determining who bears this responsibility requires careful consideration.
Another critical question is whether the safety and well-being of those within the conversation should take precedence over the effort to include as many people as possible. While it is important to strive for inclusivity, ensuring the safety and security of individuals already participating in the conversation cannot be overlooked. Balancing these concerns becomes crucial in maintaining an environment where open discourse is possible.
Moreover, what if the excluded person does not demonstrate any willingness to learn or change their behavior? Should they be excluded indefinitely, or should other measures be considered? The potential for perpetual exclusion raises concerns about reinforcing the paradox of intolerance rather than resolving it. Striking a balance between allowing for personal growth and protecting the integrity of the conversation is a challenging task.
Lastly, we must consider whether there is enough evidence in human behavior to support the underlying assumption regarding human nature in this model. Virtue ethics presupposes that individuals are capable of change and self-improvement. However, if empirical evidence suggests otherwise, it calls into question the viability of this approach. A more comprehensive understanding of human behavior and its potential for change is necessary to ascertain whether this model can indeed address the paradox of intolerance effectively.
In conclusion, virtue ethics offers a unique perspective on resolving the paradox of intolerance by presenting a model of discourse that allows for exclusion while preserving hope for future reconciliation. By adopting an educational approach rather than acting as gatekeepers, those within the conversation can guide intolerant individuals towards a more virtuous path. However, critical questions remain regarding the responsibility of education, prioritizing safety, handling non-compliance, and the underlying assumptions about human nature. Further exploration and examination are required to determine the effectiveness of this approach in addressing the complex issue of intolerance.
