Harris makes a strong case for selective intolerance of severe moral systems. He makes his case through a type of moral realism tied to a utilitarian morality, but these, I suggest, aren't performing the main job. Even those who are skeptical about precisely objective morality can reach a similar result. They can conclude that we should accept other people's judgments about what actions are right or wrong, so long as they don't harm others. This is because any system of morality will include some things that most people judge to be wrong. For example, it's easy to list atrocities that were committed in the name of various religions. So, if we're going to live together, we need some way to resolve differences about what acts are right or wrong. The first thing to note is that this strategy allows us to avoid conflict by accepting other people's judgments about what is right and wrong. It doesn't require us to agree with them. In fact, it provides some protection against being offended by their views, since we can ignore them by assuming that whatever actions they condemn do not harm others. However, this strategy has two problems. The first problem is that it puts us in a bad position if we want to change other people's minds about what acts are right or wrong. If we follow this strategy, then even if we are right, other people won't believe us.