Q&A: Tolerant Monism
Tolerant Monism
Question
Hello,
I recently heard the Rabbi define “tolerant monism” as a dispute in which both sides agree about the considerations, but do not agree on which considerations are decisive. (Correct me if I’m not understanding this precisely.)
I’m trying to understand what exactly makes me tolerant of the other person’s weighing. If I’m sure that his weighing is incorrect, then he is sinning and I should try to persuade him, and perhaps even compel him to accept my view. If I think both weighings are possible, then I’ve gone back to being a pluralist. Maybe the meaning is that I think my weighing is the correct one, but I’m not certain, and so I make room for the other opinion because of the doubt? If that’s the direction, is it because weighing is by definition a decision that has no justification—something intuitive?
Beyond that, what exactly is the difference between a disagreement about the set of considerations and a disagreement about how to weigh considerations? If there is a consideration that I think is relevant to the matter and my interlocutor thinks is unrelated—if I think it is worthwhile to eat the chocolate because it is brown and my interlocutor thinks that is nonsense—does that make him illegitimate because he is using a different set of considerations? Why?
Thank you
Answer
Hello Yonatan. My claim is that in weighing there is more room for judgment, because deciding between two good reasons is not based on a clear and sharp justification, and therefore even if in my view my friend is mistaken in his weighing, if his reasons are sound I should be tolerant toward him. One can indeed argue about that too (and it requires further consideration whether I would be tolerant toward your position 🙂 ).