tolerance must imply some sort of ultimate good.

[keannu]

Source : Reading Power, 6-8.
Ethical and moral systems are different for every culture. According to cultural relativism, all of these systems are equally valid, and no system is better than another. The basis of cultural relativism is the notion that no true standards of good and evil actually exist. Therefore, judging whether something is right or wrong is based on individual societies’ beliefs, and any moral or ethical opinions are affected by an individual’s cultural perspective. There exists an inherent contradiction in cultural relativism, however. If one embraces the idea that there is no right or wrong, then there exists no way to make judgments in the first place. To deal with this contradiction, cultural relativism creates “tolerance.” However, with tolerance comes intolerance, which means that tolerance must imply some sort of ultimate good. Thus, tolerance also goes against the very notion of cultural relativism.
=====================
Can you understand this sentence? The whole paragraph seems to be ladened with play with words.

*tolerance must imply some sort of ultimate good.

Why does tolerance have to be there? Is it to embrace bad things? If so, then tolerance implies ultimate good, then this goes against the notion of there being no good or and evil.

 

[Skrej]

It's saying that the concept of 'tolerance' is inherently counter-intuitive to the concept of cultural relativism, because 'tolerance' implies a sense of goodness, rightness, or correctness, while the concept of cultural relativism states that there is no such such as right or wrong, goodness or badness, etc.

It's stating that the concept of tolerance shouldn't exist in cultural relativism, because tolerance and intolerance define characteristics which supposedly don't exist under the concept of cultural relativism. However, the concept of tolerance is required by cultural relativism in order to make judgements, which you're not supposed to be making in the first place, according to cultural relativism.

*tolerance must imply some sort of ultimate good.

Why does tolerance have to be there? Is it to embrace bad things? If so, then tolerance implies ultimate good, then this goes against the notion of there being no good or and evil.

You are correct in picking up on the contradiction. That's exactly the main idea of the selection.

It's not specifically stated, but the implication is that tolerance is necessary to accept cultural values that may differ from your own. However, you can't have tolerance without intolerance, and then you're back to right/wrong which shouldn't exist under cultural relativism.

Note these aren't my views, just an explanation of what the text is stating.

 

[Ostap]

Not a teacher (added by moderator Rover_KE)

Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the concept of tolerance. If you tolerate things, you don't "judge" them. It's the other way round - you judge them when you are "intolerant" to them, or, on the contrary, accept/embrace them (i.e. they are either bad or good to you).

Australian aborigine's traditions are not primitive, barbaric ir uncivilized, they are just different from ours. This is cultural relativism / tolerance and here is no "judgement". It's when you say "primitive, barbaric or uncivilized" that you judge according to some "ultimate"/absolute criteria.

 

[Rover_KE]

keannu, you have once again fallen into the bad habit of giving insufficient information in the source of your quoted text.

We shouldn't have to google 'Reading Power', only to find that at least three authors contributed to the series.

 

[5jj]

Keannu, try to be a little more civil to people who are trying to help you.