Toleration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.19.20.110 (talk) at 04:29, 4 June 2007 (→Rationalization: Possibly the worst, most un-attributable line I have ever seen in Misplaced Pages.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:29, 4 June 2007 by 122.19.20.110 (talk) (→Rationalization: Possibly the worst, most un-attributable line I have ever seen in Misplaced Pages.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Tolerance redirects here. For the idea of a person's body needing more of the same medication to achieve the same effect see Drug tolerance. For the engineering term, see Tolerance (engineering).

Toleration and Tolerance are terms used within debates in areas of social, cultural and religious context, to describe attitudes and practices that prohibit discrimination against those whose practices or group memberships may be disapproved of by those in the majority. Though developed to refer to the religious toleration of minority religious sects following the Protestant Reformation, these terms are increasingly used to refer to a wider range of tolerated practices and groups, such as the toleration of sexual practices and orientations, or of political parties or ideas widely considered objectionable.

The term "tolerance" itself, like "toleration," is controversial and disliked by some due to its implication that the "tolerated" custom or behavior is in fact an aberration. Tolerance implies both the ability to punish and the conscious decision not to, but makes no statement to higher principle. Supporters of the term tolerance claim it to be more applicable than acceptance and respect. Detractors of the term suggest that the term is promoted as if it were a principle — one which falters when compared to more elevated concepts such as respect and civility.

Rationalization

In the wider sociological sense, "tolerance" carries with it the understanding that "intolerance" and conformity breeds violence and social instability. "Tolerance" has thus become the social term of choice to define the practical rationale of permitting uncommon social practice and diversity. One only tolerates people who are disliked for their differences. While people deemed undesirable may be disapproved of, "tolerance" would require that the party or group in question be left undisturbed, physically or otherwise, and that criticism directed toward them be free of inflammatory or insightful efforts.

Historically, political and religious tolerance have been the most important aspects of tolerance, since differences of political and religious ideology have led to innumerable wars, purges and other atrocities. The philosophers and writers of the enlightenment, especially Voltaire and Lessing, promoted religious tolerance, and their influence is strongly felt in Western society (see pluralism). Unfortunately, they failed to treat with sufficient rigor the equally important issue of political tolerance. While a lack of religious tolerance causes problems in many regions of the world today, differences of political ideology caused hundreds of millions of deaths in the twentieth century alone. A desideratum of contemporary scholarship, therefore, is to develop a more expansive critical theory of political toleration. Some feel this is particularly urgent in the West, where the influence of religion in public policy making continues to decline, especially in Europe but also in North America.

It is a common charge among critics that tolerance is only a "modern virtue" or a "secular virtue." A related issue is the defense of historical figures accused of intolerant acts (i.e. anti-Semitism or witch-burning). Such criticisms are at least partially answered by the many examples of prominently "tolerant" individuals and societies throughout world history, such as the multi-religious society of Al Andalus (Spain) under the rule of the Umayyads and Almoravids, the early Ottoman Empire, Abraham Lincoln (insofar as he consciously changed the purpose of the American Civil War from mere reunification of the nation to one of granting equal citizenship to all Americans) and, at least early in her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England.

Tolerance and Monotheism

The modern understanding of tolerance, involving concepts of national identity and equal citizenship for men of different religions, was not considered a value by Muslims or Christians in pre-modern times because of being monotheists, Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen state . The historian G.R. Elton explains that in pre-modern times, monotheists viewed such toleration as a sign of weakness or even wickedness towards God . The usual definition of tolerance in pre-modern times as Bernard Lewis puts it was that:

I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce."

This fair definition of tolerance in pre-modern times is an intolerant idea according to the modern understanding of tolerance.

Mark Cohen states that it seems that all the monotheistic religions in power throughout the history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. Therefore, Cohen concludes, Medieval Islam and Medieval Christianity in power should have persecuted non-believers in their lands and "Judaism, briefly in power during the Hasmonean period (second century BCE) should have persecuted pagan Idumeans". Cohen continues: "When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to thirteenth century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom. This begs a more thorough and naunced explanation than has hitherto been given."

Tolerating the intolerant

Philosopher Karl Popper's assertion in The Open Society and Its Enemies that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance illustrates that there are limits to tolerance.

In particular, should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance? What if by tolerating action "A", society destroys itself? Tolerance of "A" could be used to introduce a new thought system leading to intolerance of vital institution "B". It is difficult to strike a balance and different societies do not always agree on the details, indeed different groups within a single society also often fail to agree. The current suppression of Nazism in Germany is considered intolerant by some countries, for instance, while in Germany itself it is Nazism which is considered intolerably intolerant.

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then be intolerant, and so unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

Similarly, continues Rawls, while the intolerant might forfeit the right to complain when they are themselves not tolerated, other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again, as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members. The ACLU is a good example of a social institution that protects the rights of the intolerant, as it frequently defends the right to free speech of such intolerant organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

Despite the philosophy of Popper and Rawls, by definition, to call another intolerant is an act of intolerance. Webster's defines tolerance, in part, as:

2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something

Using the definition above, one can not claim to be tolerant while in turn labeling another as intolerant. The trouble with "tolerance" is that any two people in any society can have differing views on what is acceptable and what is not; thus the two people may in fact be intolerant of each other while claiming themselves to be tolerant.

External links

Historically important documents

(Listed chronologically)

Magna Carta
John Milton, Areopagitica
John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration and the famous Two Treatises of Government (esp. the Second Treatise)
Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Dignitatis Humanae

References

Lewis (1997), p.321; (1984) p.65; Cohen (1995), p.xix
G.R. Elton quoted in Cohen (1995), p.xix
^ Lewis (2006), pp.25-36
^ Cohen (1995) p. xix

Misplaced Pages