The issue is that (leaving aside the pacifism), your morals are the same as your enemies'. It's only your factual beliefs that differ.
Can you see how a pro-life person might apply your principle, and thus justify violence against people performing abortions/"mass-murdering unborn children"? He'd use the same sentiment you are. "I'll tolerate them, but if they devalue others' life I will not speak and only use force."
Can you see how a white nationalist who actually did think Jews were using social manipulation to slowly erase his entire lineage would justify violence against Jews? He'd use the same sentiment you are. They call it self-defense. They call Holocaust victims, "deaths in the war between the Jews and Germans" because they believe that the Jews were the aggressors.
A difference in factual beliefs, not moral principles.
What if you read the Quran and studied the history, and came to the positive conclusion that Islam is a violent expansionist ideology which dehumanizes non-Muslims and encourages followers to abuse and sometimes murder them, in a way other religions do not? You would then become anti-Islam in a forceful way, not even willing to talk to Muslims but only willing to use force against them.
Your moral beliefs are't really different from pro-life terrorists, white nationalist anti-semites, or anti-Islam murderers. What's different about you is simply your factual beliefs.
This is how you can support historical crimes - the same way they do. By getting some facts wrong.
I think Popper's tolerance framework is robust against these kinds of situations, becuase it doesn't make you a historical criminal even if you get some facts wrong.
I know I won't participate in historical crimes because even if I do think one group are really really bad, I don't think that justifies committing crimes against them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Human rights are universal, and even wrong/bad people have them. This includes speech rights.
Hm. I hear you. You've certainly given me something to chew on. I'll need to figure out how I can balance my strong opposition to dehumanizing systems against the tendency for all humans to dehumanize each other, regardless of the belief system. I really should pick up some of those moral philosophy books I put down.
Thanks for digging down into the weeds with me. It's always good to bounce ideas off people, especially those more organized of thought than me.
Anyway, hope you have a good father's day weekend.
Can you see how a pro-life person might apply your principle, and thus justify violence against people performing abortions/"mass-murdering unborn children"? He'd use the same sentiment you are. "I'll tolerate them, but if they devalue others' life I will not speak and only use force."
Can you see how a white nationalist who actually did think Jews were using social manipulation to slowly erase his entire lineage would justify violence against Jews? He'd use the same sentiment you are. They call it self-defense. They call Holocaust victims, "deaths in the war between the Jews and Germans" because they believe that the Jews were the aggressors.
A difference in factual beliefs, not moral principles.
What if you read the Quran and studied the history, and came to the positive conclusion that Islam is a violent expansionist ideology which dehumanizes non-Muslims and encourages followers to abuse and sometimes murder them, in a way other religions do not? You would then become anti-Islam in a forceful way, not even willing to talk to Muslims but only willing to use force against them.
Your moral beliefs are't really different from pro-life terrorists, white nationalist anti-semites, or anti-Islam murderers. What's different about you is simply your factual beliefs.
This is how you can support historical crimes - the same way they do. By getting some facts wrong.
I think Popper's tolerance framework is robust against these kinds of situations, becuase it doesn't make you a historical criminal even if you get some facts wrong.
I know I won't participate in historical crimes because even if I do think one group are really really bad, I don't think that justifies committing crimes against them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Human rights are universal, and even wrong/bad people have them. This includes speech rights.