| « What does tiger shrine say about mourners? | Christmas mass in Ensenada, Mexico » |
Is tolerance a virtue?
01/01/08
No great faith-based belief system lists "tolerance" as a virtue. Neither do Roman or Samurai belief systems. William Bennett wisely didn't include tolerance in his Book of Virtues.
The BOOK OF VIRTUES by William J. Bennett
"Justice" is there as is "mercy" and "self-restraint."
The reason tolerance doesn't appear is that toleration requires no effort (character). In fact, its essence is the opposite of strain; it merely demands one to do nothing when confronted with a decision- to not care. Justice, the closest virtue to tolerance begs restraint and the application of some concept of fairness. Justice also obligates one to judge.
Tolerance can be as negative as it can positive. People can tolerate bad behaviors and toleration of the malevolent may lead to the increase of the tolerated evil. I can list hundreds of examples, but let's say that Giuliani would have been more circumspect had he sought office in Hester Prynne's day, and a Victorian-era Brangelina may have married before Shiloh.
Tolerance can be a good strategy to an end. It certainly makes living in a religiously diverse society easier. Companies can be less tolerant of poor performance if it tolerates differences in bottom-line irrelevant traits like race.
It is because of the uniqueness of our society that tolerance is preached in schools (My daughter just told me of a movie she saw in school called Marisela about a Salvadoran girl who's ostracized by the white kids, and two-thirds of all textbook stories have to do with "accepting" and tolerating.) and by politicians. It's also emphasized because our weaker society naturally gravitates towards the easy. It's easier to look away than to confront, give, or assist.
So, the next time somebody lists tolerance as one of his virtues, just shrug your shoulders. Good for you!
12 comments
Great post -
Tolerance is indecision at best and lack of concern at worst.
I AM NOT TOLERANT.
Tolerance is indecision at best and lack of concern at worst.
I AM NOT TOLERANT.
01/02/08 @ 01:01
An act of tolerance can be virtuous, but is is only a subset to a real virtue. People want to be loved, not tolerated. Jesus called us to love (not tolerate) our enemies and this means willing their good. To tolerate an evil is not to will a good.
The great Peter Kreeft had this to say on tolerance.
Tolerance is one of the few non-controversial values today. Nearly everyone in our society accepts it. So it is a powerful selling point for any theory or practice that can claim it. What of relativism's claim to tolerance? Well, I see no less than eight fallacies in this popular argument.
* First, let us be clear what we mean by tolerance. Tolerance is a quality of people, not of ideas. Ideas can be confused, or fuzzy, or ill defined, but that does not make them tolerant, or intolerant, any more than clarity or exactness could make them intolerant. If a carpenter tolerates 3/16 of an inch deviation from plane, he is three times more tolerant than one who tolerates only 1/16 of an inch, but he is no less clear. One teacher may tolerate no dissent from his fuzzy and ill-defined views—a Marxist, let's say—while another, say Socrates, may tolerate much dissent from his clearly defined views.
* Second, the relativist's claim is that absolutism, belief in universal, objective, and unchanging moral laws, fosters intolerance of alternative views. But in the sciences, nothing like this has been the case. The sciences have certainly benefited and progressed remarkably because of tolerance of diverse and heretical views. Yet science is not about subjective truths, but about objective truths. Therefore, objectivism does not necessarily cause intolerance.
* Third, the relativist may further argue that absolutes are hard and unyielding and therefore the defender of them will also be hard and unyielding. But this is another non-sequitor. One may teach hard facts in a soft way, or soft opinions in a hard way.
* Fourth, the simplest refutation of the tolerance argument is its very premise. It assumes that tolerance is really, objectively, universally, absolutely good. If the relativist replied that he is not presupposing the objective value of tolerance, then all he is doing is demanding the imposition of his subjective personal preference for tolerance. That is surely more intolerant than the appeal to an objective, universal, impersonal, moral law. If no moral values are absolute, neither is tolerance. The absolutist can take tolerance far more seriously than the relativist. It is absolutism, not relativism, that fosters tolerance.
* Fifth fallacy: It is relativism that fosters intolerance. Why not be intolerant? He has no answer to this. Because tolerance feels better? Or because it is the popular consensus? Well suppose it no longer feels better. Suppose it ceases to be popular. The relativist can appeal to no moral law as a dam against the flood of intolerance. We desperately need such a dam, because societies, like individuals, are fickle and fallen. What else will deter a humane and humanistic Germany from turning to an inhumane, Nazi philosophy of racial superiority? Or, a now-tolerant America from turning to a future intolerance against any group it decides to disenfranchise. It is unborn babies today, born babies tomorrow. Homophobes today, perhaps homosexuals tomorrow. The same absolutism that homosexuals usually fear because it is not tolerant of their behavior is their only secure protection against intolerance of their persons.
* Sixth fallacy. Examination of the essential meaning of the concept of tolerance reveals a presupposition of moral objectivism, for we do not tolerate goods. We only tolerate evils in order to prevent worse evils. The patient will tolerate the nausea brought on by chemotherapy in order to prevent death by cancer. And a society will tolerate bad things like smoking in order to preserve good things like privacy and freedom.
* Seventh, the advocate of tolerance faces a dilemma when it comes to cross-cultural tolerance. Most cultures throughout history have not put a high value on tolerance. In fact, some have even thought it a moral weakness. Should we tolerate this intolerance? If so, if we should tolerate intolerance, then the tolerance objectivist had better stop bad-mouthing the Spanish Inquisition. But if we should not tolerate intolerance, why not? Because tolerance is really good, and the Inquisition was really evil? In that case, we are presupposing a universal and objective trans-cultural value. What if instead, he says it is only because of our consensus for tolerance? But his history's consensus is against it. Why impose on ours? Is that not culturally intolerant?
* Eighth, finally, there is a logical non-sequitor in the relativist argument too. Even if the belief in absolute moral values did cause intolerance, it does not follow that such values are not real. The belief that the cop on the beat is sleeping may cause a mugger to be intolerant to his victims, but it does not follow that the cop is not asleep. Thus, there are no less than eight weaknesses in the tolerance argument.
The great Peter Kreeft had this to say on tolerance.
Tolerance is one of the few non-controversial values today. Nearly everyone in our society accepts it. So it is a powerful selling point for any theory or practice that can claim it. What of relativism's claim to tolerance? Well, I see no less than eight fallacies in this popular argument.
* First, let us be clear what we mean by tolerance. Tolerance is a quality of people, not of ideas. Ideas can be confused, or fuzzy, or ill defined, but that does not make them tolerant, or intolerant, any more than clarity or exactness could make them intolerant. If a carpenter tolerates 3/16 of an inch deviation from plane, he is three times more tolerant than one who tolerates only 1/16 of an inch, but he is no less clear. One teacher may tolerate no dissent from his fuzzy and ill-defined views—a Marxist, let's say—while another, say Socrates, may tolerate much dissent from his clearly defined views.
* Second, the relativist's claim is that absolutism, belief in universal, objective, and unchanging moral laws, fosters intolerance of alternative views. But in the sciences, nothing like this has been the case. The sciences have certainly benefited and progressed remarkably because of tolerance of diverse and heretical views. Yet science is not about subjective truths, but about objective truths. Therefore, objectivism does not necessarily cause intolerance.
* Third, the relativist may further argue that absolutes are hard and unyielding and therefore the defender of them will also be hard and unyielding. But this is another non-sequitor. One may teach hard facts in a soft way, or soft opinions in a hard way.
* Fourth, the simplest refutation of the tolerance argument is its very premise. It assumes that tolerance is really, objectively, universally, absolutely good. If the relativist replied that he is not presupposing the objective value of tolerance, then all he is doing is demanding the imposition of his subjective personal preference for tolerance. That is surely more intolerant than the appeal to an objective, universal, impersonal, moral law. If no moral values are absolute, neither is tolerance. The absolutist can take tolerance far more seriously than the relativist. It is absolutism, not relativism, that fosters tolerance.
* Fifth fallacy: It is relativism that fosters intolerance. Why not be intolerant? He has no answer to this. Because tolerance feels better? Or because it is the popular consensus? Well suppose it no longer feels better. Suppose it ceases to be popular. The relativist can appeal to no moral law as a dam against the flood of intolerance. We desperately need such a dam, because societies, like individuals, are fickle and fallen. What else will deter a humane and humanistic Germany from turning to an inhumane, Nazi philosophy of racial superiority? Or, a now-tolerant America from turning to a future intolerance against any group it decides to disenfranchise. It is unborn babies today, born babies tomorrow. Homophobes today, perhaps homosexuals tomorrow. The same absolutism that homosexuals usually fear because it is not tolerant of their behavior is their only secure protection against intolerance of their persons.
* Sixth fallacy. Examination of the essential meaning of the concept of tolerance reveals a presupposition of moral objectivism, for we do not tolerate goods. We only tolerate evils in order to prevent worse evils. The patient will tolerate the nausea brought on by chemotherapy in order to prevent death by cancer. And a society will tolerate bad things like smoking in order to preserve good things like privacy and freedom.
* Seventh, the advocate of tolerance faces a dilemma when it comes to cross-cultural tolerance. Most cultures throughout history have not put a high value on tolerance. In fact, some have even thought it a moral weakness. Should we tolerate this intolerance? If so, if we should tolerate intolerance, then the tolerance objectivist had better stop bad-mouthing the Spanish Inquisition. But if we should not tolerate intolerance, why not? Because tolerance is really good, and the Inquisition was really evil? In that case, we are presupposing a universal and objective trans-cultural value. What if instead, he says it is only because of our consensus for tolerance? But his history's consensus is against it. Why impose on ours? Is that not culturally intolerant?
* Eighth, finally, there is a logical non-sequitor in the relativist argument too. Even if the belief in absolute moral values did cause intolerance, it does not follow that such values are not real. The belief that the cop on the beat is sleeping may cause a mugger to be intolerant to his victims, but it does not follow that the cop is not asleep. Thus, there are no less than eight weaknesses in the tolerance argument.
01/02/08 @ 17:13
Comment from: William Michaelis [Visitor] 
I believe "Tolerance" is a Virtue. You may say it requires no effort.. but what makes you think this?
It can be the act of forgiveness, acceptance, love and respect. Are those not virtuous qualities?
Forgiving someone who has done you harm... Tolerance.
Accepting those who are different from you... Tolerance.
Holding back your hand, on a child seeking attention... Tolerance.
Respecting those not because they're right or because they're wrong, but because they're human... Tolerance.
01/18/08 @ 09:23
All of those things require one to not care. "You're OK, I'm OK." It may be good policy, but it's not hard.
01/18/08 @ 10:17
All of those things only require one to not care. "You're OK, I'm OK." It may be good policy, but it's not hard.
01/18/08 @ 10:19
Comment from: William Michaelis [Visitor]
To care or not to care? This is an argument on its own and has nothing to do with tolerance. A judge does not have to care when deciding judgment. Isn't justice a virtue? Couldn't this argument be reflected towards this as well?
Tolerance is a virtue with someone in the possession of power.
A person with power does not need to think of the consequences, as they can get their way no mater what. To subside from using their power is a virtue. This can be tolerance.
Tolerance is a virtue with someone in the possession of power.
A person with power does not need to think of the consequences, as they can get their way no mater what. To subside from using their power is a virtue. This can be tolerance.
01/18/08 @ 12:01
Comment from: William Michaelis [Visitor]
Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
Let me ask you this. If you do not care, then what are you tolerating?
If you did not have a strong enough belief in your argument to begin with, then you have nothing to tolerate.
The act of Not-caring results in Intolerance. Which is the opposite of tolerance.
Let me ask you this. If you do not care, then what are you tolerating?
If you did not have a strong enough belief in your argument to begin with, then you have nothing to tolerate.
The act of Not-caring results in Intolerance. Which is the opposite of tolerance.
01/18/08 @ 13:18
Comment from: Bryce [Visitor]
actually, scary. not just strange. but again, you really have no idea.
02/18/08 @ 23:53
Comment from: William Michaelis [Visitor]
"Actually, scary. not just strange. But again, you really have no idea."Was that directed towards me?
----
Well all in all, no matter how my speech may sound weird to others, my main argument is...
He stated.. Tolerance requires one not to care. (But in reality that just means he doesn't care. That doesn't mean tolerance.)
Tolerance actually holds restraint, as it means to endure something that you don't necessarily have to. You can choose to fight back, but you restrain yourself. That is genuine tolerance.
Todays society confuses tolerance with a fake persona of what tolerance really means. Not many people show genuine tolerance.
(If the person doesn't care, they are not tolerating. Tolerance requires the person to care about the situation in order to tolerate it.)
04/12/08 @ 18:13
In other words, he forces himself not to care. Wow!
04/12/08 @ 22:32
Comment from: William Michaelis [Visitor]
Force yourself not to care? What kind of an argument is that? Where you even reading my post?Once you do not care, then you are not tolerating anything. Tolerance requires one to care, as Tolerance requires restraint.
To-Care and Tolerance are two separate things and they totally contradict one another.
04/14/08 @ 08:28
Comment from: William Michaelis [Visitor]
To put it simply.When you do not care, you are void of Tolerance.
04/14/08 @ 08:35
Comment feed for this post
