Abnormal Interests

I have this quote among the several random Twain quotations that appear in the upper right hand corner of Abnormal Interests' main page. Often, I am often startled by the quotation and wonder to what extent it is a useful moral principle or a moral principle at all.

Blanket indifference is immoral. Indifference to suffering, war, exploitation, theft, murder, torture, famine, victims of natural disasters, victims of crime, humans rights abuses, sexism, rape, AIDS, racial discrimination, environmental abuses (Need I list them all?) is the festering disease infecting many of the problems we face today. This class of indifference is clearly wrong and should be condemned.

There is a strong meaning to indifference which is equal to turning one's back on the world. This is the "I don't give a damn" meaning of the word. I think this kind of indifference is always immoral. But there is also weaker meaning. This meaning says, "I find it interesting, but not to the point that makes much of a difference." This, weaker, meaning may also be immoral, but not always. It is this second meaning where there are a few realms "indifference" may be a superior moral position.

One is the context in which the Twain quote was scribbled. Indifference to someone else's religious beliefs or lack of same. Tolerance, as Twain correctly observed, is a poor substitute for indifference in this context. Tolerance is something one person grants another. Tolerance implies superiority to the tolerated. Indifference is not a gift given by a superior position to a subordinate one. Indifference puts everyone on an equal footing. This does not mean that we can not discuss opinions with regard to religion. We discuss many topics to which we are indifferent in the weak sense. My neighbor's garden comes to mind. I am interested in her garden. I find it attractive. I may even what to plant the same kind of plants some day. We can discuss her choice in plants and my choice in plants. But, just because I have azaleas, I really don't care that she has roses or even that her garden is fallow. We can discuss gardening, roses, azaleas, a fallow garden and still be indifferent in the weak sense.

I am not advocating that we be indifferent to the human abuses or enforced ignorance of many religions. These we treat as we would any other abuse or any other ignorance. But we remain weakly indifferent to their association with religious views. This isn't always easy. Often, immoral practices and ignorant positions seem deeply fused to religion. But high principle and great knowledge are often fused to religion too. I suggest we be indifferent to each other's religion opinions in the weak sense of indifferent.

A second area in which weak indifference is likely a superior moral position is sexual orientation. Except in the special case where another person is a potential, desirable, and available sexual partner, why does anyone care about a person's sexual orientation? Again, tolerance is less moral than indifference.

Indifference may be the preferred moral position on a wide range of individual behavior and choice.

Where I was once tolerant, I will now try to be indifferent.

[A side note to professional ethicist: I know that this lacks the rigor of your discipline. I didn't even try. This is a "sermon" after all. However, making "indifference" to religion, sexual orientation and similar realms a universally law would be beneficial to all, with harm to none. Yes, you did feel a Kantian breeze.]