Toleration

Ask any question
877-Dr-Kenner
(877-375-3663)
Call toll-free any Saturday Noon-1pm Eastern Time
How to call
or email

Articles

Toleration vs. Happiness
Compassion vs. Happiness
 

Toleration vs. Happiness

Beware: The twisted trap of toleration

I don't  like the Red Sox, but I tolerate my friend's right to enjoy this team. I dislike the sound of the accordion, yet I tolerate the rights of those who enjoy it. I would be happy if red and green  peppers were never used in cooking, I don't like the taste, but I tolerate others right to produce and savor stuffed peppers.
    I despise the spectacle of watching haggard, unhappy woman, in dark drab robes, bow down to kiss the floor in a church, in self-abnegation, i.e., "worship" of some ghostly deity. I don't feel any toleration. I despise politicians  who take money from hardworking, creative individuals and use it to promote their "do-gooder" schemes. I don't feel any toleration. I despise seeing rusted, contorted pieces of metal  displayed in public parks, passing as pieces of art. Again I feel no toleration.
    Am I intolerant?  How would you answer this? I would say, "Absolutely and proud of it!" if by toleration you mean a wimpy acceptance of anyone's irrationality.
    If your husband says "You're so intolerant. Loosen up will you! I can drink two six  packs and hold my liquor. Chill out!"  What do you do?
    Toleration is a slippery word. There is a context in which is it appropriate. In my first examples, one's enjoyment of the Red Sox, of the accordion and of stuffed peppers, are all rational values. By rational values, I mean, promoting the short term and long term happiness of an individual by being consistent with the facts of reality and with the nature of a healthy thinking individual. There is nothing self-destructive or destructive of others in the enjoyment of accordion or of peppers,  or of enjoying a sport. Toleration of others rational choices, even though you recognize your own dislike of them, is healthy (e.g., I don't like baseball, I understand that you do. We can coexist and be friends.)
    But there is a context in which toleration is used, where the concept itself becomes a cancer. If you were to say to your alcoholic husband,  "Okay, I guess I've got to be more tolerant. I guess you can hold your liquor and drive after drinking two six packs" what effect would this have on you?  Notice that you would be lying to yourself and to him. You are bothered by his drinking. You would be taking your evaluation of his drinking and saying that your own evaluation is no good, that your judgment is no good,  that your thinking is no good, that your mind is no good.  It is not healthy to toss out your ability to judge healthy and not healthy choices and actions, it's not healthy to avoid discriminating between the rational and the irrational in life.
    The rational serves life (e.g., a great career, a fun vacation, a loving partner), the irrational threatens and sabotages life (e.g., the attack on the World Trade Center, drinking and driving). You need that ability to distinguish what promotes your life (the rational) from what destroys your life  (the irrational) for survival. When toleration is used to say you shouldn't pass moral judgment, don't give in. Ask yourself why you're feeling as you do. If you are intolerant, because, objectively, the action a person is taking is against life and happiness, then you can proudly own your "intolerance".
    For example, you have every right to say to  your alcoholic husband, "You drive and I'll call the cops." Or "I'm getting a divorce – I don't like you." You can say to the "artist" who designed the twisted metal, "You're nothing but a con-artist. This is a revolting spectacle of nihilistic crap." To the grovelers of some deity you can say, "I don't admire you, I think you have  pitifully missed out on living your life". To the politician, you can call him by his proper name, a thug, not a political leader in the respectful sense of the founding fathers.
    When anyone calls you intolerant, check first to see if your judgment is rational. If you say, "I can't stand Hispanics." Notice that this is blatantly irrational.  Which Hispanics? What if someone said they couldn't stand "whites"? Which whites? Ted Bundy? Clinton? Your best friends?  Notice that statement "I can't stand whites (or  Hispanics) is grotesquely irrational. You are judging character based on a non-chosen, biological characteristic, not on a person's choices and actions, his self-made character, his use of his  free will. But if you say "I can't stand my alcoholic husband," you are judging him on his choices: the choice to drink, to drink to excess, to ignore any real life threats to himself  or others, to choose to drive, to try to make you look like the crazy one for being "intolerant" of his drinking.
    When you are rationally intolerant, then you are serving your own life and those of any rational individual. You don't ever need to apologize for your courage to speak out and name someone else's irrationality. How to speak out effectively, is  another issue.

A culture does not exist, apart from the individuals which make it up.

A culture consists of the customs, civilization, and achievements of a particular group of individuals in a specified time. Just as there are rational and irrational individuals, there are rational and irrational cultures. Rational people and cultures can make mistakes but in the long run always work towards ever-increasing peaceful coexistence because they use the same tools; independence, integrity, justice, honesty, productivity and pride, i.e. rationality. A characteristic of irrational people and cultures is that they repeatedly choose lifestyles and governments that are opposed to these virtues and they consistently violate individual rights.
    No matter what an irrational person does, such a person can not get along with other people. No matter what an irrational culture does, such a culture can not get along with  other cultures.
    But rational people and rational cultures do get along with each other, despite honest mistakes and differences of opinion. Their very rationality gives them  the tool to resolve these differences.
    So, when is toleration a means to peaceful coexistence and when does it become an obstacle to happiness? If you tolerate rational differences in people and cultures, that is a means to happiness. If you tolerate irrationality in people or cultures, you serve only to further promote their irrationality. This is why it is self-defeating to be tolerant of a murder or of a murderous culture.

top of page

Compassion Vs. Happiness

 Does that sound strange? Listen to the following comments and see if you can figure out some hazards of being  ``compassionate." What are these ``compassionate" individuals doing to their own sense of justice and to their own sense of self-worth?

     ``He's so giving and compassionate. He's a saint. His mother was very abusive; she incessantly belittled and hit him, yet he treats her well. He'd give her the world. You would never have suspected the harm she has done him.`` Clue: What has this compassionate guy done to his own sense of justice?
     ``What a compassionate person she is. She gets a babysitter every weekend and she's  down here at the soup kitchen.  She'll do anything for those worse off then she is." Clue: Why do people have to be ``worse off" than her to warrant her attention? What happened to her capacity for admiring those more successful than herself? What does this suggest about her own sense of self worth?
     ``He's a compassionate, forgiving man. A  neighbor raped his daughter but he holds no grudges. He continues to talk with this neighbor."Clue: What happened to his sense of justice?
    ``Many people feel compassion for Clinton. Yes, it's true that while married he had an affair with an intern and he lied under oath. But they can forgive him. They understand that no one's perfect." Clue: Is no one accountable for making bad choices? Are we all excusable? What is this suggesting about the people excusing Clinton?

     ``Compassion" is  defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, as ``pity inclining one to help or to be merciful." Some situations properly evoke compassion (e.g., a friend's losing his child to cancer, a  neighbor losing her home in a hurricane).  It is appropriate to help others under certain conditions (e.g., that the help is temporary, that they are in trouble through no fault of their  own, that it's not a sacrifice for you, that they are not your enemies and that they thank you appropriately). But why do some people bask in doling out unearned compassion and unearned pity. Why the need to focus on the pitiful or the need to let scoundrels off the moral hook in the name of ``compassion"? There are several possible explanations.

1. Self-justification: Some people have skeletons in their own closets and they want to be let off the moral hook as they are letting these people off the hook. ``No one's perfect" is their battle cry. For example, if you shoplifted in your youth, you might be more ``compassionate" toward those who commit similar acts nowadays. It helps you pretend to yourself that you couldn't help shoplifting and thus, neither could they. You were both victims of circumstances.   If you lacked the courage to judge your own bad choices accurately, what would now give you the courage to judge others accurately?  When you let the abusive mother, the rapist or Clinton off the moral hook, there's a toll. The compassion you give to them penalizes their innocent victims. To show compassion toward your abusive parent is abusive toward yourself. To show compassion toward your daughter's rapist is a gross injustice to your daughter.
2. Inferiority: Some people embrace the self-image of being compassionate to cover their own feelings of inferiority.  For them, admiration, focusing on people more ambitious and productive, is painful, whereas surrounding themselves with and comparing themselves to those worse off buys them a false sense of feeling adequate, needed and even superior.  They have a vested interest in finding those less well off.  You may have a ``compassionate" friend who is always there to console you during difficult times, but when you achieve success, e.g., you get a promotion, this same friend remains silent.  A fortune cookie message I once got speaks to this point ``Some friends can accept anything in you -- except success."
3. Unearned guilt for healthy success: Some people feel the need to focus on those less admirable because they have been made to feel guilty for their healthy achievements. When you work hard, put forth effort, plan well for your own long-range goals and become successful, you may then falsely attribute your success to ``luck" and feel that you must ``share the luck" with those who refused to put the energy and effort into their lives. It's paying for your ``sin" of earned success. What those others who don't put forth the effort need is not a compassionate share of your time and your wealth, rather they need to learn your method to guide their own lives well. Don't apologize for your rationally earned success. Enjoy it!
4. Fear of passing judgment: The desire to be a ``nice person," to avoid saying anything offensive or negative to anyone, powers many of us. We've learned that it's better to be nice, rather than to be honest. Most of us have seen crude examples of tactless honesty such as a hotheaded, hostile person who bluntly  ``tells you like it is." He's repulsive and we don't want to be like him. So we adopt a ``nice" personality, i.e., we never express our negative thoughts. This is psychologically disastrous. If you try to be ``nice" in your marriage and never tell your  spouse what bothers you, at a certain point, you will be unable to keep up the sweet veneer and you will explode with a tirade of negatives.  You can still be honest and ``tell it like it is" by learning some tact and some communication skills (e.g., ``I" language).  It's important to accurately pass judgement and speak your mind. It's self-respecting to do so.

     Compassion, in the sense of being the nice person, subjugating your judgement to make others feel better, is the enemy of honesty. Compassion, in the sense of letting  others off the moral hook to justify your own misdeeds, is the enemy of responsibility and accountability. Compassion, in the sense of a selective focus on those who do not lead their lives well, is the enemy of justice. Compassion, in the sense of belittling your own earned success and paying penance for your achievements is the enemy of self-respect.  The alternative to compassion is not rudeness, hostility nor contempt. The alternative is to respect yourself and your own healthy judgement. Learn to speak your mind openly, assertively and  tactfully. The alternative is looking, not for flaws or tragedy in people, but for admirable healthy character traits and actions.
     If compassion simply meant empathy, being able to ``put yourself in the other person's shoes" and understand his difficulty from his context, then it might not be destructive. I can mentally ``put myself in the shoes" of an abusive parent or of a shoplifter, yet still tactfully pass judgement on the bad choices they have made.
     The notion that ``none of us is perfect" warrants a few words. If  perfect means never making a mistake or a poor choice then ``being perfect" is impossible. But for a human being, perfectis the best of what is possible to him. It does not require him to be omniscient. It requires that he use his mind in the healthiest manner possible, that when faced with healthy vs. unhealthy choices, he makes the healthiest choice given all the relevant facts at his disposal. The ``no one's perfect" defense of bad choices dissolves in this context.
     So what is the cure for compassion? Tactful honesty, self-respect,  justifiable admiration, responsibility, and the resulting earned self-respect. Choose to be honest and learn the communication skills that allow you to speak your own mind, tactfully. Experience  the pride of your own rationally earned success. Develop the capacity to admire those who have made rational achievements. Don't appease those who have not worked as hard as you have and who then  try to belittle your achievements.
     I'll end with a paragraph from The Fountainhead: ``Compassion is a wonderful thing. It's what one feels when one looks at a squashed caterpillar. An elevating experience. One can let oneself go and spread –you know, like taking a girdle off. You don't have to hold your stomach, your heart or your spirit up – when you feel compassion. All you have to do is look down. It's much easier. When you look up, you get a pain in the neck. Compassion is the greatest virtue. IT justifies suffering. There's got to be  suffering in the world, else how would we be virtuous and feel compassion? …Oh, it has an antithesis –but such a hard, demanding one…Admiration, Mrs. Jones, admiration. But that takes more than a girdle. So I say that anyone for whom we can't feel sorry is a vicious person."
     Regain your self-respect. Get your spirits up. Compassion, in the sense of unearned  pity and unearned forgiveness, has no place in a rational person's thinking and it won't guide you in the direction of happiness.

top of page