In this, I disagree with the Kwaio. A simplistic naive cognitivism would leave it at that. But the sophisticated version I advocate must go further. All the conclusions given by the class-theory about the meaning and role of adalo in the ordering of the Kwaio world are wholeheartedly incorporated into the naive cognitivist theory. It is important to note that this is not a granting of license for intolerance or ethnocentrism.
Disagreement is therefore no obstacle to tolerance.
It seems to me that ethnocentrism is, in fact, better avoided by the naive theory than by the class-theory. This distinction is being imposed from without, and is a contingent feature of post-Descartes European philosophy. Moreover, the class-theory disregards with little examination the lack of distinction in the Kwaio between these two kinds of statements. Conclusion I have concentrated in this paper on a critique of the class-theory, and only sketchily described the naive cognitivist position I advocate. The most important feature of the sophisticated version of naive cognitivism is its ability to help in inter-religious understanding.