This is inspired by the Boy Scout threads, but I want to raise an issue of more general applicability.
To what extent should you be tolerant of intolerant beliefs or practices?
I am not talking about rights or legality. In the example of the Boy Scouts, it is established by the Supreme Court that they may legally discriminate against homosexuals, and IMO, the decision was legally correct. Instead, what I am asking is, am I being intolerant for condemning the Boy Scout’s POV? To get away from the Boy Scouts, am I intolerant if I were to be aghast at the beliefs of certain sects of Islam and Orthodox Judaism concerning women?
In short, does a believe in tolerance require a struggle against intolerance (in the non-legal sense), or does it require acceptance of intolerance?
To paraphrase a dictionary definition, tolerance is the “recognition of and respect for belief systems different from one’s own”. I would say that not all belief systems merit equal respect[sup]1[/sup], and that no belief system should be given more respect than it is due. It’s possible to recognize and respect a belief system while criticizing it at the same time.
As a side point: intolerance causes direct, palpable harm. Why would a tolerant person ever be obligated to tolerate that?
This is something that has bothered me for some time. I don’t understand how the “tolerant” in society can condemn the “intolerant”. It just doesn’t make any sense.
You know the type who says, “I can’t stand those redneck hate mongers.” Well, in making that statement don’t they become “hate mongers” of sorts?
IMHO, it not only shows a lack of tolerance but a lack of intelligence as well.
Sua, there is a terrific discussion of this very problem in Stanley Fish’s The Trouble With Principle and There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech: And it’s a Good Thing, Too. Fish deals with the utter bankruptcy of universal tolerance in a witty and polemical way. Check it out.
To the extent that you feel someone else should be tolerant of your beliefs or pratices. It is not intolerant to share your opinions with people who you feel are being intolerant.
I can’t imagine anyone saying that you have no right to “be aghast” at something, or condemn it. It’s when you start trying to deny these people the right to live and act in accordance with their beliefs (in the abscence of an unwilling victim that you are saving) that you get into more dangerous territory. Ultrafilter’s summation of this is on target, IMHO.
One other thing to bear in mind is that the importance of tolerance is not solely as an absolute moral value. It is also a sort of rules for the playing field - to keep everyone from killing each other, we agree to live and let live. As such, the exact details may be subject to practical considerations.
Great question! There is a very thin line there, and I think a lot of people protesting hatemongering can too quickly go over the line. Because, in truth, social censure does work, temporarily. I think that it eventually boils down to a fairly ugly proposition: Some things we should not tolerate because they are destabalizing influences. We should be tolerant of people who do odd things, but, we shouldn’t be tolerant of murderers. Similarily, a blind hatemonger should be discouraged, because blind hate tends to lead to societal problems/divides. However, it is an ugly proposition since it is TOO easy to become emotional/overblown about it, and end up becoming more damaging than what you are tryign to protest.
Tying this concretely to BSA – they should feel free to discriminate against gays, straights, bis, etc – but I am responsible for attempting to make my position known – that they are less moral than if they did not. If I do not at least protest slightly, then I am condoning immoral behaviour.
Good points from all so far. Izzy, special props for linking that thread. I’d forgotten about it, and there are some very good points there.
But, insomuch as an OPer can guide a debate, I’d really like to focus more on the propriety of protesting intolerance or discrimination, rather than the right to do so. I look on intolerance as a continuum.
At one end, we have the Nazis and the KKK. At the other end, we have female-only colleges (hey, regardless of their good purpose, they are discriminatory).
At what point on the continuum do I open my mouth? Is it where I object on principle (which would include all-girl colleges), or on negative effect (which would exclude all-girl colleges)? Should I give religion-inspired intolerance more latitude than political belief? Should my acceptance of a group’s overall goals affect my ethical obligation to speak out against intolerant aspects of that goal (the Boy Scouts and PETA come to mind)?
I think this is a case where the dictionary has not maintained pace with shifting usage. I do not think the word tolerance is generally used to denote respect for a divergent belief. Rather, I think tolerance has come to mean the acceptance within a given social context of people whose beliefs or practices one does not respect.
I do not respect the beliefs of white supremecists.
I do tolerate their presence in American society.
I do not tolerate their presence in my living room.
Tolerance, like most values, is best expressed within a context. To treat it like an absolute commandment leads to the type of contradictions mentioned in the OP.
Sua: I would draw the line at negative consequences. If something provides more benefit than cost, why fight it? Pragmatism (in the everyday sense, not the philosophical sense) is relevant here.
Spiritus Mundi: Well put. I concur completely.
The white supremacists have a right to express their views. A good person is morally obligated to debate and educate the white supremacists.
We tell our children to stand up for what they believe in, and to be careful not to cram thier beliefs down other people’s throats–it’s no wonder we are all terribly confused.
Super-tolerence, taken to its extreme, would seem to state that people ought not try and influence each other at all. This is, of course, silly.
I am having trouble saying what I mean, but I suppose what I am getting at is that while it may be intolerant to try and change the way people think (through social pressure, not laws), I do think that that intolerance is a good thing, and in fact crucial to the sucess of a society. It is perhaps a subtle democracy: if there is a particular attitude that the majority of a population thinks is admirable, social pressure will come to bear on the minority, encouraging them to conform. I really don’t have a problem with this, becasue I do think there are ideas that really are advantageous to society, and that a society were all views on, say, property rights, are unique is going to fall apart.
On the other hand, I am vastly comforted by the fact that this subltle democracy is horribly inefficient, and will always leave loopholes and cracks for unpopular attitudes to thrive in. I have friends who are millitantly intolerant of intolerance, to the point that they have no personal knowledge of people who don’t conform to mainstream ideas of tolerance–they’ll leave the room or close thier ears on the bus whenever they are confronted with a true charecter. My father-in-law, for example, is an incredible bundle of conspiricy theories, racist and sexist and homophobic assumptions, and wacky stories to back it all up. I would never, in a million years, want to be friends with this man. I am glad we see him for no more than a day once a year or so. But I do think that the experience of letting him talk–not shutting him up or leaving the room as soon as he starts to go on–has taught me a hell of a lot about people, and even about my self. Furthermore, he’s colorful. I like colorful people. I am glad that the social pressure which I approve of will never be totally successful, because wrong-headed people are add flavor to the world. (Plus, some widespread ideas are wrong, and it is good to know that social pressure can never totally stamp out any idea).
This is a subject that I’ve thought an awful lot about. Being a Unitarian Universalist, this issue of tolerance is one at the core of my beliefs. Tolerating the beliefs of others is a core tennant of UUism. Once I ran a service on this very issue, tolerating intollerance.
I think IzzyR hit it on the nose. It is perfectly ok to disagree, be unhappy with, or even angry about someone else’s beliefs. A tolerant person can (and should) disagree with some views. Otherwise, he or she is just an indiscriminate smiley-face with legs. Intolerance is what happens when people forcibly restrict others’ right to act on their beliefs.
Also, Manda JO I agree with you when you say that intollerance is not always a bad thing. For when someone is infringing on my rights, it sometimes makes sense to stand up and stop that person.
For my part, I believe that people should be forcibly restricted from acting on their beliefs more often. Permitting other people to hold beliefs antithetical to one’s own is fine and well, but giving them license to act out whatever they will is manifestly not. I consider stopping such people an expression of my own beliefs, which have the same claim to legitimacy as those whom I oppose.
I basically will tolerate anyone or anything unless and until they fail to extend the same tolerance to others. When they fail to do that, they lose my respect. If they aren’t tolerant of others, why should others be tolerant of them?
Even then, there’s a proportional response to their intolerance. I’m not going to harass little Webelos because the BSA excludes gays. Neither am I going to volunteer for an educational astronomy night for Scouts as I have in the past. Why should I offer my services to them when they withold their services from others for such an irrational reason?
I do think it’s possible for people who oppose intolerance to go too far. Then they lower themselves to the level those they oppose, and persons of reason should speak out against that, as well. For example, I wouldn’t be very sympathetic to a gay person who said he hated all Boy Scouts irrespective of their attitudes toward the policy.
This is, inherently, paradoxical. If you are only extending toleration to those who return the favor, you are essentially only tolerating those beliefs and the individuals who belong to them if they are at least partially aligned to your own by measuring them up against a criterion of tolerance.
This is preference, not tolerance. You are extending your tolerance to include only those people who are not beyond the pale. Let us at least be honest with ourselves about this.
Not that it is exactly related but this thread reminds me of Dylan’s lyrics in My Back Pages where he relates that if he forces his ‘tolerant’ views on others then he might be just as guilty of intolerance as those forcing their values on him.
Ahhh, there’s the rub!! Is this sufficient, ultrafilter? For example, on (not enough) occasion, I help out at a Habitat for Humanity work site. What if tomorrow, Jimmy Carter announced that from now on, Habitat for Humanity would only build houses for white folk?
Undoubtedly, Habitat for Humanity would still be “doing good” - there are plenty of white families that need housing, and the cost-benefit analysis still probably cuts in favor of Habitat.
Should I still work for Habitat under those circumstances?
