odiamo i,vicino

 https://www.facebook.com/riccardo.mariani.585/posts/pfbid0fCxyDrgrjrmVDY1gLz8MNUWQPYxHkoUD9HRuQA9w39DX1DJc1heLkq1YVr3N2DhPl?__cft__[0]=AZWdN72TziYpJlCBxdpzr28Ryn27LMhL7awFI5OBxFJHtfJiLuirJn5Ypo_k-QToWVWfyuPAfon-bofR_66M0bryFu8fvxydKDYYqrohoY89VUgUMeL4LuBqEx0XG6B8FIVy37SGYszxUBT_nqFL95TXDfNazXEbyRUl6Ck2QWHPew&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

COMPAGNI LIBERALI CHE SBAGLIANO

COMPAGNI LIBERALI CHE SBAGLIANO
Molti liberali ingenui credono di dover tollerare tutti tranne gli intolleranti, ma non è così: devono tollerare tutti tranne una sottocategoria marginale di intolleranti: gli intolleranti asimmetrici.
Esempio: se escludo dalla mia festa negri ed ebrei perché li odio non sono un intollerante, ma sono simmetrico, e vado dunque tollerato. Se pretendo che negri ed ebrei siano esclusi anche dalla tua festa sono invece un intollerante asimmetrico, e non posso essere tollerato.  

Ecco, l’intollerante simmetrico è talmente odioso che il “liberale di larghe vedute” non riesce davvero a tollerarlo oltre e contro di lui invoca a sproposito l’intolleranza in nome famoso paradosso.

Tollerare gli intolleranti - cap. 8 fair play

Tollerando gli intolleranti il mondo sarà un posto migliore. E’ questo il messaggio lanciato da Steven Landsburg nel suo saggio “The Symmetry Principle”.

Ma andiamo con ordine, chi sono gli intolleranti da tollerare? Quelli che rispettano il “principio di simmetria”.

Esempio, Giovanni odia gli omosessuali, non vuole né toccarli né vederli e nel suo locale non sono ammessi, chi prova ad entrare viene cacciato in malo modo.

Domanda: Giovanni è un intollerante? Direi. Solo che rispetta il principio di simmetria: non pretende di avere il diritto di introdursi nei locali gay dove non è gradito.

Altro esempio: Renzo è un tennista che non tollera di giocare con i tennisti neri. Ha un rifiuto che gli viene da dentro. Se nel corso di un torneo si accorge della presenza di tennisti di colore piuttosto dà forfait e se ne torna a casa.

Domanda: Renzo è un intollerante? Direi! Ma rispetta il principio di simmetria: non impone ai tennisti di colore di partecipare a tornei in cui ci sono anche dei bianchi, qualora non lo desiderino.

Giovanni e Renzo, due intolleranti da tollerare in quanto rispettosi del principio di simmetria.

Tollerando gli intolleranti che rispettano il “principio di simmetria” in fondo tolleriamo chi ha gusti diversi, e quindi, indirettamente, anche la nostra diversità.

In molti casi chi non tollera l’intolleranza fa addirittura peggio degli intolleranti poiché non rispetta nemmeno il principio di simmetria. Ecco un esempio preclaro:

… Mary owns a vacant apartment; Joe is looking for a place to live. If Joe disapproves of Mary’s race or religion or lifestyle, he is free to shop elsewhere. But if Mary disapproves of Joe’s race or religion or certain aspects of his lifestyle, the law requires her to swallow her misgivings and rent the apartment to Joe. Or: Bert wants to hire an office manager and Ernie wants to manage an office. The law allows Ernie to refuse any job for any reason. If he doesn’t like Albanians, he doesn’t have to work for one. Bert is held to a higher standard: If he lets it be known that no Albanians need apply, he’d better have a damned good lawyer. These asymmetries grate against the most fundamental requirement of fairness—that people should be treated equally, in the sense that their rights and responsibilities should not change because of irrelevant external circumstances. Mary and Joe—or Bert and Ernie—are looking to enter two sides of one business relationship. Why should they have asymmetric duties under the antidiscrimination laws? When the law is so glaringly asymmetric, one has to suspect that the legislature’s true agenda is not to combat discrimination on the basis of race, but to foster discrimination on the basis of social status… Why do we recoil from imposing the burdens of affirmative action on Joe and his fellow apartment hunters or Ernie and his fellow job seekers? I think it’s because we recognize that Joe and Ernie have a right to live according to their values, and that we cannot respect that right without allowing them to exercise it in ways we don’t like—even when they are motivated by intolerance or bigotry…

E’ un buon cristiano che ci raccomanda di non sorvolare sulle ingiustizie di chi viola il principio di simmetria:

… Pastor Martin Niemoller, after eight and a half years in a Nazi concentration camp, wrote these words: They came first for the Communists, but I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did not speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by then there was nobody left to speak up…

Certo che l’idea di tollerare gli intolleranti è ben strana. Assomiglia un po’ all’idea della libertà d’espressione.

… The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas—like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally…

Non è un caso se il motto “non tollerare gli intolleranti” appartiene a Popper, ovvero a chi chiedeva censure più pesanti nei confronti della TV.

Chi sono i nemici dell’idea “tolleriamo gli intolleranti”? Essenzialmente gli amici dell’idea dei “diritti civili”.

… “gay civil rights” is a euphemism for restricting the civil liberties of those who, for whatever reasons, would prefer not to do business with gays…

Vediamo un’altra plateale violazione del principio di simmetria, simile anche se non identica. E’ interessante perché nemmeno ci accorgiamo di certi soprusi. Riguarda le barriere architettoniche:

… Along the same lines, suppose you’re wheelchair-bound and therefore unable to reach the third story of your favorite shopping mall. Under the law, the mall owner can be required to install an elevator to accommodate you. But there can be no moral sense to such a law, because it requires the owner (a total stranger) to help you overcome your handicap, while allowing me (another total stranger) to ignore your plight completely… The mall owner and I are equally indifferent to your problems; why should he be singled out to bear the entire cost of solving those problems while I go on my merry way?… You might want to counter-argue that the mall’s appearance did make you worse off by creating a new attraction that your neighbors can enjoy and from which you are excluded. But that counter-argument is based on the position that you actively dislike having good things happen to other people unless you can share in them. That’s a pretty crabbed view of what constitutes an improvement in the world—and taken to its logical extreme, it would require that you be compensated every time anybody does anything that benefits anyone…

Per chiudere, facciamo un altro esempio, questa volta un po’ diverso, ma che mette sempre insieme intolleranza e principio di simmetria: il partito dei cibi senza glutine vince le elezioni e vara una legge in cui si pretende che almeno metà dello spazio commerciale dei supermercati ospiti cibo senza glutine. Per semplicità potremmo anche ipotizzare che metta fuori legge il cibo contenente glutine. Oppure: il partito del ramadan vince le elezioni e mette al bando carne di maiale e alcol.

Si tratta di “intolleranti da tollerare”?

Sì: rispettano il principio di simmetria. In altri termini, non impediscono ad altri partiti, magari altrettanto “intolleranti”, di partecipare alle elezioni democratiche.

Eppure, ciascuno di noi vede un problema in tutto questo, magari si prefigura esempi ancor più radicali e trema. Forse che il “principio di simmetria” non è così solido come si pensa? No, il problema non deriva dal principio per cui in presenza di “simmetria” bisogna “tollerare gli intolleranti” ma dal principio “democratico”, quello sì poco solido, che consente alla maggioranza (che non è mai maggioranza) di decidere per tutti. Ecco, allora vediamo di agire dove si annida la malattia e non altrove.

P.S. recentemente ci sono state due esternazioni di segno contrario:

- Luigi Manconi: http://www.internazionale.it/opinione/luigi-manconi/2015/03/31/liberta-espressione-erri-de-luca-cecile-kyenge-negazionismo

- Nassim Taleb: http://www.pagina99.it/2016/09/24/perche-il-politicamente-corretto-e-una-minaccia-alla-liberta/.

8 Fairness II: The Symmetry Principle - Fair Play: What Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values and the Meaning of Life by Steven E. Landsburg

 8 Fairness II: The Symmetry Principle - Fair Play: What Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values and the Meaning of Life by Steven E. Landsburg - #discriminazioneasimmetrica #tolleraregliintolleranti #nuovidirittimenodiritti

8 Fairness II: The Symmetry PrincipleRead more at location 1127

Note: 8@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Edit

Mary owns a vacant apartment; Joe is looking for a place to live. If Joe disapproves of Mary’s race or religion or lifestyle, he is free to shop elsewhere. But if Mary disapproves of Joe’s race or religion or certain aspects of his lifestyle, the law requires her to swallow her misgivings and rent the apartment to Joe. Or: Bert wants to hire an office manager and Ernie wants to manage an office. The law allows Ernie to refuse any job for any reason. If he doesn’t like Albanians, he doesn’t have to work for one. Bert is held to a higher standard: If he lets it be known that no Albanians need apply, he’d better have a damned good lawyer. These asymmetries grate against the most fundamental requirement of fairness—that people should be treated equally, in the sense that their rights and responsibilities should not change because of irrelevant external circumstances. Mary and Joe—or Bert and Ernie—are looking to enter two sides of one business relationship. Why should they have asymmetric duties under the antidiscrimination laws? When the law is so glaringly asymmetric, one has to suspect that the legislature’s true agenda is not to combat discrimination on the basis of race, but to foster discrimination on the basis of social status.Read more at location 1154

Note: DISCRIMINAZIONE ASIMMETRICA Edit

Pastor Martin Niemoller, after eight and a half years in a Nazi concentration camp, wrote these words: They came first for the Communists, but I did not speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did not speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by then there was nobody left to speak up.Read more at location 1193

Note: NON SORVOLARE SULLE INGIUSTIZIE Edit

Why do we recoil from imposing the burdens of affirmative action on Joe and his fellow apartment hunters or Ernie and his fellow job seekers? I think it’s because we recognize that Joe and Ernie have a right to live according to their values, and that we cannot respect that right without allowing them to exercise it in ways we don’t like—even when they are motivated by intolerance or bigotry.Read more at location 1201

Add a note

The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas—like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally.Read more at location 1212

Note: TOLLERARE GLI INTOLLERANTI E LIBERTÀ D EASPRESSIONE Edit

“gay civil rights” is a euphemism for restricting the civil liberties of those who, for whatever reasons, would prefer not to do business with gays.Read more at location 1229

Note: I NUOVI DIRITTI SONO UN MODO PER RISTRINGERE I VECCHI Edit

Along the same lines, suppose you’re wheelchair-bound and therefore unable to reach the third story of your favorite shopping mall. Under the law, the mall owner can be required to install an elevator to accommodate you. But there can be no moral sense to such a law, because it requires the owner (a total stranger) to help you overcome your handicap, while allowing me (another total stranger) to ignore your plight completely.Read more at location 1241

Note: BARRIERE ARCHITETTONICHE... A CARICO DI CHI? Edit

The mall owner and I are equally indifferent to your problems; why should he be singled out to bear the entire cost of solving those problems while I go on my merry way?Read more at location 1244

Add a note

You might want to counter-argue that the mall’s appearance did make you worse off by creating a new attraction that your neighbors can enjoy and from which you are excluded. But that counter-argument is based on the position that you actively dislike having good things happen to other people unless you can share in them. That’s a pretty crabbed view of what constitutes an improvement in the world—and taken to its logical extreme, it would require that you be compensated every time anybody does anything that benefits anyone.