The paradox of unlimited tolerance is that it has unacceptable consequences in allowing the destruction of a tolerant society; same for pacifism if the grounding principles for it are valuing human life and preferring positive-sum outcomes instead of just non-violence being an end in itself.
There obviously can be and are many people arguing for absolute principles (often in bad faith, since they don’t actually hold the principles themselves), which is what makes it so topical.
I agree, on the object level, that principles often are ‘true’ or valuable but with justified exceptions.
But I don’t understand why the best response isn’t just ‘There are justified exceptions to those principles.‘, or ‘I don’t hold that principle to be true or valuable absolutely.’.
The paradox of unlimited tolerance is that it has unacceptable consequences in allowing the destruction of a tolerant society; same for pacifism if the grounding principles for it are valuing human life and preferring positive-sum outcomes instead of just non-violence being an end in itself.
There obviously can be and are many people arguing for absolute principles (often in bad faith, since they don’t actually hold the principles themselves), which is what makes it so topical.
I agree, on the object level, that principles often are ‘true’ or valuable but with justified exceptions.
But I don’t understand why the best response isn’t just ‘There are justified exceptions to those principles.‘, or ‘I don’t hold that principle to be true or valuable absolutely.’.