Is Hillel's and the Jewish philosophy of relationships superior to others?
In discussing Hillel's philosophy with our Torah Study group at Temple Rodef Shalom, I argued that it was superior to the basic philosophy in Buddhism or Christianity. That is because it sees the both my individual happiness and my obligation to help others as important goals. And it invites a problem-solving process to find different solutions for each relationship and issue, as well as to find social institutions and laws that harmonize the self and others.
Some people were upset at this idea, seeing a claim to superiority as offensive. I think this comes from an American philosophy, that of John Dewey. As I understand him, he wants to view all views a legitimate and let consensus emerge from Democratic process. Regarding one view as better than another is, in this view, intolerant.
I don't accept Dewey, but prefer the Sages, who would do judgments and rulings as to what view is best, but wouldn't be dogmatic about it. They left the ruling open to revision by future generations, with their new insights. So to me what is intolerant is not judging one view as superior, but being dogmatic about it—not being open to discussion, evidence, and changing your mind. What do you think?