Defenses of Toleration

It is a widespread opinion that toleration, as a political practice, has merely instrumental value. The aim of this paper is to defend, on the contrary, that toleration has political value in itself. In more specific terms, I will claim that it is valuable in itself in virtue of its intrinsic relationship with democracy. Toleration is a constituent of democracy inasmuch as it is necessary for the existence of a democratic administration of political power. I will show that that relation (...) of constitution holds because toleration, through the protection of spaces of contestation to the political power, contributes to solving democracy’s inner tension resulting from its practical implementation. -/- Es una opinión extendida que la tolerancia, en cuanto práctica política, tiene valor meramente instrumental. El objetivo de este artículo es defender, por el contrario, que ella tiene valor político en sí. Específicamente, defenderé que es valiosa en sí misma a causa de su relación intrínseca con la democracia. La tolerancia es un constituyente de la democracia en cuanto es necesaria para que pueda existir una administración democrática del poder político. Mostraré que esa relación de constitución existe porque la tolerancia, mediante la protección de espacios de contestación al poder político, contribuye a la resolución de una tensión interna de la democracia en su implementación práctica. (shrink)

This work examines some of the grounds that are commonly used to justify tolerance, evaluating them in terms of both their scope and limits. The grounds of justification fall within three major categories: epistemological arguments, arguments about the proper role of the state and varieties of pluralism. Throughout the work, the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, is used to evaluate the scope of those justifications and the limits they place upon tolerance. Discussion of the Satanic Verses controversy (...) is most thorough in the first chapter. Epistemological justifications include skepticism, relativism and the marketplace of ideas; public/private justifications include both Locke's claim that religious matters are not the proper concern of the state and Mill's self-regarding/other-regarding distinction; pluralist justifications include competing theories of multiculturalism and the older understandings they seek to replace. The conclusion is a critical examination of the limits of the methodology used in this work, as a summary of the kind of guidance each justification can provide to the Rushdie case. (shrink)

This paper intends a comparative analysis of freedom of thought and toleration,as these concepts appear by the end of the 17th century in Locke's Epistola de Tolerantia and Bayle's Commentaire Philosophique. Nowadays we think that an open society implies freedom of thought as one of its pillars, and so an unlimited toleration, except in case others were injured. For Locke, things were different: freedom of thought was, for him, obedience to natural law, the basis of human society, and this purported (...) that those who did not recognize the law were excluded. Bayle, on the other hand, showed that the only truth subsistent in issues concerning religious matters was a relative, "putative truth", something that catholics, mahometans and atheists pretended to possess. There was no reason, therefore, to exclude those groups from human society. In his book, Bayle is sometimes against himself. On the contrary, Locke's theory is clear and well founded. But, and this is our conclusion, not always attentive to practical life contingencies.Este trabajo se propone un análisis comparativo de la libertad de pensamiento y tolerancia, tal como estos conceptos aparecen hacia fines del siglo XVII en la Epistola de Tolerantia de Locke y en el Commentaire Philosophique de Bayle. Actualmente pensamos que una sociedad abierta implica libertad de pensamiento como uno de sus pilares, y así una tolerancia ilimitada, excepto en caso que otros resultaran dañados. Para Locke, las cosas eran diferentes: libertad de pensamiento era para él obediencia a la ley natural , base de la sociedad humana, y ello implicaba que aquellos quienes no reconocieran la ley serían excluidos. Bayle, por el contrario, mostró que la única verdad subsistente en las cuestiones concernientes a temas religiosos era una verdad relativa, una "verdad putativa", algo que católicos, mahometanos y ateos pretendían poseer. No había, en consecuencia, razón para excluir a tales grupos de la sociedad humana. En este libro, Bayle estaba a veces contra sí mismo. Por el contrario, la teoría de Locke es clara y bien fundamentada. Pero -y ésta es nuestra conclusión-, no siempre atenta a las contingencias de la vida práctica. (shrink)

The commonly perceived tension between authentic moral and ethical action and action involving tolerance is held to be the illusory product of an unduly individualistic frame of thought. Moral and ethical actions are produced not by independent individuals but by participants in cultural traditions. And even the wholly routine continuation of a single homogeneous tradition must always and invariably involve mutual tolerance: participants must interact not as independent individuals but as tolerant members. Tolerance deserves recognition, accordingly, as a primary virtue, (...) not merely compatible with authentic moral and ethical action, but required by it. An explicit rhetoric enjoining tolerance needs to be understood as performative discourse employed to change, or else to sustain, the systems of tolerances in which all cultures, whether simple or differentiated, homogeneous or diverse, unified or fragmented, invariably consist. (shrink)

(From Liberty Fund:) The topics of church and state, religious toleration, the legal enforcement of religious practices, and religiously motivated violence on the part of individuals have once again become burning issues. Pierre Bayle’s Philosophical Commentary was a major attempt to deal with very similar problems three centuries ago. His argument is that if the orthodox have the right and duty to persecute, then every sect will persecute, since every sect considers itself orthodox. The result will be mutual slaughter, something (...) God cannot have intended. -/- The Philosophical Commentary takes its starting point from the words attributed to Jesus Christ in Luke 14:23, “And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be full.” Bayle contends that the word compel cannot mean “force.” From this perspective, he constructs his doctrine of toleration based on the singular importance of conscience. His point is not that coercion usually is ineffective in matters of faith but that, even when effective, it is wrong because it ignores the indispensability of the free conscience. (shrink)

Consider the following facts about the average, philosophically untrained moral relativist: (1.1) The average moral relativist denies the existence of “absolute moral truths.” (1.2) The average moral relativist often expresses her commitment to moral relativism with slogans like ‘What’s true (or right) for you may not be what’s true (or right) for me’ or ‘What’s true (or right) for your culture may not be what’s true (or right) for my culture.’ (1.3) The average moral relativist endorses relativistic views of morality (...) without endorsing relativistic views about science or mathematics. (1.4) The average moral relativist takes moral relativism to be non-relatively true and does not think there is anything contradictory about doing so. (1.5) The average moral relativist adopts an egalitarian attitude toward a wide range of moral values, practices and beliefs, claiming they are all equally legitimate or correct. (1.6) The average moral relativist often admonishes others to be more tolerant of those who engage in alternative ethical practices and to refrain from making negative moral judgments about them. (1.7) The average moral relativist sometimes makes negative moral judgments about the behavior of others—e.g., by harshly judging moral absolutists to be intolerant—but is less inclined to do so when the relativist’s metaethical views are salient in a context of judgment. (1.8) The average moral relativist takes anthropological evidence concerning the worldwide diversity of ethical views and practices to support moral relativism. (shrink)

In this article, I examine the meaning of the concept of ?civility? for Roger Williams and the role it played in his arguments for religious toleration. I place his concern with civility in the broader context of his life and works and show how it differed from the missionary and civilizing efforts of his fellow New English among the American Indians. For Williams, civility represented a standard of inclusion in the civil community that was ?essentially distinct? from Christianity, which properly (...) governed membership in the spiritual community of the church. In contrast to recent scholarship that finds in Williams a robust vision of mutual respect and recognition between co-citizens, I argue that civility constituted rather a very low bar of respectful behavior towards others entirely compatible with a lack of respect, disapproval, and even disgust for them and their beliefs. I show further that civility for Williams was consistent with?and partially secured by?a continued commitment on the part of godly citizens to the potential conversion of their neighbors. Williams endorsed this ?mere? civility as a necessary and sufficient condition for toleration while also delineating a potentially expansive role for the magistrate in regulating incivility. Contemporary readers of William who conflate civility with other good things, such as mutual respect, recognition, and civic friendship, slide into a position much like that he was trying to refute. (shrink)

I argue that one standard account of the problem of induction, that which is commonly attributed to Hume, is misguided, in that it places unwarranted emphasis on the denial of necessary connexions between events. Once this emphasis is removed, then a way open to a solution, or dissolution, of the problem is revealed. ;I attempt to show first, some recent scholarship notwithstanding, that Hume can fairly be read as propounding scepticism about induction, and that this scepticism in large measure depends (...) upon the claim that physical events are all contingent. But then I argue that Hume has failed to support this contingency thesis. Once it is admitted that there may be necessary connexions between events, then the problem of induction as standardly characterised appears less threatening. ;While this particular sceptical thesis may be removed, however, its place is taken by a more general scepticism, under which it is complained that unless the conclusion of an argument is entailed by its premisses, we have no reason to accept that conclusion. But, I argue, although we cannot rebut this scepticism, neither can the sceptic provide any reasons for us to take him seriously. A toleration of the inefficacy yet the resilience of sceptical considerations is, I suggest, Hume's major philosophical insight. (shrink)

This article reconstructs the main arguments in John Locke’s first political writings, the highly rhetorical, and often obscure, Two Tracts on Government . The Tracts support the government’s right to impose religious ceremonies on its people, an astonishing fact given Locke’s famous defense of toleration in his later works. The reconstruction of the Tracts developed here allows us to see that rather than a pessimistic view of the prospects for peace under religious diversity, what mainly animates the young Locke is (...) a desire to defend the rule of law against an anarchical conception of religious freedom. The article also argues that the evolution of Locke’s thinking on religious freedom was in large part governed by Locke’s attempt to interpret religious freedom in a way that avoids its having anarchical implications. (shrink)

In Why Tolerate Religion?, Brian Leiter argues against the special legal status of religion, claiming that religion should not be the only ground for exemptions to the law and that this form of protection should be, in principle, available for the claims of secular conscience as well. However, in the last chapter of his book, he objects to a universal regime of exemptions for both religious and secular claims of conscience, highlighting the practical and moral flaws associated with it. We (...) believe that Leiter identifies a genuine and important contemporary legal and philosophical problem. We find much to admire in his reasoning. However, we raise questions about two claims that are crucial for his argument. The first claim is that it is not religion as such, but conscience that deserves toleration and respect. The second claim is that respect for religion and conscience demands ‘principled toleration’ but does not entail stronger policies of legal exemptions. Against the first claim, we argue that Leiter does not successfully distinguish religious belief from secular conscience and morality; and he does not explain why secular conscience deserves respect. Against the second claim, we argue that the most promising theories of legal exemptions are not classical theories of liberal toleration. (shrink)

I outline the current debate over the European Union democratic deficit in terms of differing methodological approaches towards the realization of freedom and basic rights to political participation. Federalists opt for a model of freedom as noninterference and autonomous self-determination by proposing to tie basic rights in the EU to a univocal form of European-wide popular sovereignty. Although skeptics argue that the EU lacks the fundamental basis for such European-wide democratic self-determination, they ultimately defend a similar view of freedom as (...) noninterference with their appeal to the collective will of the member states. Democratic revisionists instead point to the novel democratic potential of institutions in the EU such as the Open Method of Coordination for mediating overlapping sovereignties. I conclude using the example of basic rights to effective participation for immigrants and minorities to illustrate the strengths of the revisionist view over views that appeal to the principle of subsidiarity. (shrink)

Religious pluralism (the view that all the great world religions are equally true) is largely motivated by the fear that religious exclusivism ( the view that there is just one correct religion) leads to intolerance and oppression of those holding differing religious views. I claim that this suggests a false dichotomy: either be a tolerant pluralist or an intolerant exclusivist. I argue, first, that the seventeenth-century doctrine of toleration supports the claim that exclusivists of differing sects can peacefully coexist and, (...) second, that religious pluralism has harmful consequences. Exclusivism (tempered by toleration) is the best solution to the challenge of religious diversity. (shrink)

Tolerance is generally regarded as an unqualified achievement of the modern West. Emerging in early modern Europe to defuse violent religious conflict and reduce persecution, tolerance today is hailed as a key to decreasing conflict across a wide range of other dividing lines-- cultural, racial, ethnic, and sexual. But, as political theorist Wendy Brown argues in Regulating Aversion, tolerance also has dark and troubling undercurrents. Dislike, disapproval, and regulation lurk at the heart of tolerance. To tolerate is not to affirm (...) but to conditionally allow what is unwanted or deviant. And, although presented as an alternative to violence, tolerance can play a part in justifying violence--dramatically so in the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. Wielded, especially since 9/11, as a way of distinguishing a civilized West from a barbaric Islam, tolerance is paradoxically underwriting Western imperialism. Brown's analysis of the history and contemporary life of tolerance reveals it in a startlingly unfamiliar guise. Heavy with norms and consolidating the dominance of the powerful, tolerance sustains the abjection of the tolerated and equates the intolerant with the barbaric. Examining the operation of tolerance in contexts as different as the War on Terror, campaigns for gay rights, and the Los Angeles Museum of Tolerance, Brown traces the operation of tolerance in contemporary struggles over identity, citizenship, and civilization. (shrink)

Does it transform conflicts into productive tensions, or does it perpetuate underlying power relations? To what extent does tolerance hide its involvement with power and act as a form of depoliticization?

“Multiculturalism”, “pluralism” and “tolerance” have become buzz words in applied ethics. While serious and well thought out work is going on in these areas, a misunderstanding of the importance of tolerance, and the difficulties raised by multicultural moral conflict seems common. In this paper I argue that intolerance of some cultural traditions is morally required, and suggest that the forging of a moral mono-culture is preferable to pluralism.

The idea of toleration (or tolerance—the terms are mostly used interchangeably) plays a paramount role in liberal theorizing with regard to the normative characterization of the relations between the state and citizens and between majority and minority groups in society. Toleration occurs when an agent A refrains from interfering negatively with an agent B’s practice x or belief y despite A’s opposition to B’s x-ing or y-ing, although A thinks herself to be in the position of interfering. So, the notion (...) of toleration necessarily incorporates the three following elements: (1) negative judgment—whether grounded in moral disapproval or “mere” dislike; (2) power to interfere—whether actual, perceived, or counterfactual; (3) reasons for noninterference—whether epistemological (fallibilism, skepticism), practical (balance of forces), or moral (value commitments). Is the forbearance of what one finds objectionable a strong enough normative ideal when it comes to establishing what we owe to each other in circumstances of moral disagreement? Does the request that we (possibly grudgingly) put up with someone’s objectionable lifestyle and convictions render toleration a condescending concession rather than the consequence of the recognition of everyone’s equal rights? In response, some have argued that we should interpret demands of toleration not as mere claims for noninterference but for the public recognition of the equal legitimacy of someone’s lifestyles and convictions (toleration as recognition). A recent line of debate concerns the kinds of relation that the ideal of toleration is apt to inform: is toleration primarily a political ideal qualifying the way in which liberal institutions should treat those who live under them or should toleration be invoked also to characterize horizontal relations between citizens? Whatever response is given to this question, limits to toleration must be established. As toleration is required of us vis-à-vis what we find objectionable, does it entail relativism? Liberals tend to think that reference to the harm principle should work as a limit for toleration: but what does count as a relevant (physical or symbolic) harm? Such questions acquire importance as the domain of toleration extends from the realm of religious conflicts, out of which it originated in the 16th and 17th centuries, to include a number of culture and ethics-related issues: should a liberal state permit pornography? What is the appropriate response to such cultural practices as female circumcision? Should neutral institutions prohibit the exhibition of religious symbols in public spaces? (shrink)

Voltaire's militancy in favor of religious toleration is well-known. But he seems to be concerned by its practical results, the rehabilitation of those religiously persecuted, rather than by the theorectical reasonings to convince his opponents. That can be seen in the few importance given to argumentation in the Traité sur la tolerance , mostly composed by historical examples of violence caused by religious fanaticism. However, in Voltaire we find real philosophical reflection on tolerance, but the author finds it inneficient to (...) convince his contemporaries, who are more inclined to accept the presentation of matters of fact rather than the discussion of matters of right. But Voltaire does not limit his comments to facts, he knows that philosophy and law have something to say about tolerance, and that theory influences on and is influenced by practices. So that Voltaire's reflections on tolerance are not limited only to practical positions adopted to defend some individuals from religious persecution, his positions have to be understood also at its theorectical level, for at this level he is also original and gives no concessions, which separates him from his English masters such as John Locke. (shrink)

This paper seeks to show the analytical limitations of the most popular terms describing the relationship between religion and politics, the two most popular being "separation of church and state" and "separation of religion and politics". Although the latter term is preferred it is still quite vague in its meaning and, strictly speaking, impossible to put into practice. I try to clarify the meaning of "separation of religion and state" by discussing the early writings out of which the tradition arose, (...) those of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. I contend that the best way to define the meaning of the separationist doctrine is to place it within the context of the liberalism from which it emerged. This allows the separation of religion and state to be not only possible but also more relevant for pluralist societies and post-colonial societies who wish to avoid both religious domination and complete secularism. (shrink)

This paper argues for a new perspective on Locke's account of toleration by looking at a set of important but neglected arguments for toleration. Standard accounts which view Lockean toleration as justified solely on considerations of conscience fail to explain Locke's preferred form of toleration, the process by which he overcame his earlier objections to toleration, and the importance of considerations regarding the practicability of religious toleration. The paper argues that attention to Locke's political arguments provides a more complete account (...) of his toleration, which integrates his views on toleration with his wider political theory. These political arguments arise from, and are intimately related to this theory of consent and his epistemological views. The political arguments allow Locke to formulate a response to the then prevailing problematique of toleration exemplified by Samuel Parker's objections. These arguments not only establish toleration as a natural right, but also a necessary condition for maintaining legitimate political society. They also explain his intolerance of atheists and Catholics on grounds other than prejudice. (shrink)

Prevalent today in the religious philosophy of religious pluralism, Hick, but the most faithful Christian in the Catholic Church, adopted the form of dialogue is pulled behind the theory of religious tolerance on the inside. This study is to examine the Catholic Church as an inclusive theory is based on the best choice? From contemporary research results in the possibility that Hick's religious pluralism and tolerance in the discussion on the existence of problems and their remedy. So, first, this will (...) sort out a rough theory of types of religious dialogue; Second, religious pluralism and tolerance were explored on the basic idea; Finally, view the two theories were proposed to resolve the difficulties and solutions. John Hick's religious pluralism is popular in the field of Philosophy of Religion today. Yet the supporting theory for interreligious dialogue is Karl Rahner's religious inclusivism in the Catholic Church all over the world. The study attempts to exam whether it is the best choice for Catholic world , and whether we may find the difficulties and its suggestions to improve them according the results of the contemporary scholars. Therefore, this article is to classify all the theories of the interreligious dialogue first; then, explores respectively the basic thoughts of pluralism and inclusivism; finally, tries to find out the difficulties and its resolving approaches for both theories. (shrink)

In this engaging and comprehensive introduction to the topic of toleration, Andrew Jason Cohen seeks to answer fundamental questions, such as: What is toleration? What should be tolerated? Why is toleration important? Beginning with some key insights into what we mean by toleration, Cohen goes on to investigate what should be tolerated and why. We should not be free to do everythingÑmurder, rape, and theft, for clear examples, should not be tolerated. But should we be free to take drugs, hire (...) a prostitute, or kill ourselves? Should our governments outlaw such activities or tolerate them? Should they tolerate “outsourcing” of jobs or importing of goods or put embargos on other countries? Cohen examines these difficult questions, among others, and argues that we should look to principles of toleration to guide our answers. These principles tell us when limiting freedom is acceptableÑthat is, they indicate the proper limits of toleration. Cohen deftly explains the main principles on offer and indicates why one of these stands out from the rest. This wide-ranging new book on an important topic will be essential reading for students taking courses in philosophy, political science and religious studies. (shrink)

The aim of this essay is to reflect on the Millian, utilitarian argument from truth that is held as one of the most conspicuous answers to the question Why tolerate? This argument postulates that only in a free market of ideas may the truth be discovered. Even the most unpopular idea may contain some truth in it and may contribute to the advancement of knowledge. It further commands us to contest those opinions which are believed to be true vigorously and (...) earnestly to explore some further truth, and to acknowledge their false aspects. The results of free exchange of opinions will either confirm our idea, or bring some doubt to our attention, to cast accounts and maybe change our opinion, at least to some extent. After reflecting on some of the common arguments that are frequently mentioned in this connection, I discuss Mill's formulation of the Truth Principle as it came into expression in his writings. Here I reflect on his article "Law of Libel and Liberty of the Press" which did not receive adequate attention by scholars. I show that it is difficult to reconcile what Mill had to say in this article with what he later said in On Liberty. I further maintain that the Millian view of truth as superior to all other social values might endanger the very ground which the Truth Principle is intended to safeguard, i.e., tolerance. The holding of truth as the most important value might result in harming individuals, and in generating an atmosphere of intolerance. (shrink)

The Dalai Lama is well known for his tolerance of other religious traditions, actively encouraging people to celebrate their own faiths rather than convert to Buddhism. However, far from being a pluralist as this attitude suggests, he believes that ultimate liberation is obtained only through the practice of Buddhist teachings. This apparent contradiction is resolved when one examines some of the teachings that he follows, such as the notions of emptiness , skilful means , karma and rebirth. On such examination (...) it becomes apparent that it is precisely through the prioritising of these Buddhist teachings that his tolerance is rendered possible. (shrink)

According to Jeremy Waldron, John Locke's argument for the instrumental irrationality of persecution is fatally flawed. In this paper, I offer evidence that Waldron has misread Locke, and that Locke's views about why persecution generally proves inefficacious have greater plausibility than Waldron allowed. Locke's argument for the irrationality of intolerance does not, as has been thought, rest on a tendentious ontological distinction between ‘the will’ and ‘the understanding’, but on an account of the adverse psychological reaction of victims of persecution (...) to their plight. Persecution, Locke argued, provokes in its victims feelings of distrust and hostility that diminishes the chances that they will convert to the religion that has persecuted them. An appeal to the ‘victim's perspective’ in order to dissuade would-be persecutors was a fundamental part of his case for toleration, and one that was noticed and employed by other proponents of toleration. (shrink)

One of the most important issues today is the conflict between identity groups. Can the concept of toleration provide resources for thinking about this? The standard definition of toleration – rejection or disapproval of a practice or belief followed by a constraint of oneself from repressing it –has limits. If we seek to make political and social conditions of toleration among diverse people a stable reality, we need to flesh out more deeply and widely what that depends upon. The essence (...) to which it has been reduced was not toleration’s original impulse. In the sixteenth century, the objective was to create conditions of peaceful collective life among diverse groups of believers. I examine one strand of change in moral valuation underpinning political toleration: ideas about the body, time and the self as explored by Michel de Montaigne. We can extract from this analysis a way to think about grounding toleration today: a recognition of the value of particular, embodied selves. (shrink)