What they said. Though not necessarily in that order.
Oh, and save the black jellybeans for me.
But spiritus, I wonder… how do we tolerate others’ ethical systems which do not build in tolerance? 
Is tolerance of ethical systems the mutha’ of all compromise? (ie- can we set aside our standard of goodness through our goodness standards? And were we good for doing so?)
Half serious question, but I think I know your answer already.
Bastard…I miss breakfast; its always tea-time here.
I agree that tolerance is certainly a major step over intolerance. And that subjugating one’s personal views to the moral right of another to hold differing views is a darn good idea.
But I feel that acceptance, not in the sense of incorporating those differing views into one’s own worldview, but in the sense that there is something right and valid in another’s views that deserves my respect and affirmation, is above both.
In short, and for example: I am a committed Christian. But I can understand and respect the view of Czarcasm that there is no evidence satisfactory to him that demonstrates the existence of god. And I can reason from such a premise to grasp how a given hypothesis might affect someone who holds it, as I did in a response to Brian Bunnyhurt on another thread today. While I disagree with Snark Hunter’s views on the morality of gay sex, I can understand the commitment to his religious beliefs that causes him to torture himself on the subject. And I can work for the relief of his self-induced antinomy through urging self-acceptance. As I did on the thread that gave rise to this one.
To accept another’s views does not mean total subscription to them. It means to honor them as equal to your own, having the same objective right to review and possible refutation or acceptance, and to deal with them honestly and forthrightly as the sincere holdings of someone equal to yourself.
I will accept nothing less from myself. And I would urge that same standard to everyone whose mind is supple enough to accommodate it.
As I tried to illustrate in my first response to the OP, I think that it is important to be precise in identifying the objects of our sentences.
In teh situations you mention, I would say that the object of your acceptance is <the validity of a belief in poster X’s frame of reference>. You have not acepted <the belief> (i.e., the validity of the belief either objectively across reference frames of personally within your reference frame.)
thus, in my terminology, you tolerate the belief. You acept the value of the belief for someone else.
This is where we might differ, though. When you say “right and valid”, under what contexts do you intend that to hold?
arl
Yes. (Is that the answer you expected?)
I can, however, easily envision examples in which I could not tolerate the expression of an intolerant ethical system.
I disagree. I think.
Ok, we have a mathematical theory and a mathematical interpetation of that theory. Case in point: quantum physics. We all agree on the operation of numbers. Everyone accepts the mathematics of it as much as they accept mathematical operations in general.
Now we have the application of that theory. That is, we apply these mathematical constructs to collected data. We accept this because it works for whatever reason.
“For whatever reasons” is the last step. Why does it work? Coincidence? Divine intervention? Underlying physical laws which may or may not be explicit or derivable from within the universe? And so on. We believe any one thing, like above, and accept it. It is a part of our outlook. We tolerate the others because they are equally plausible, or at least plausible period (because we probably think ours is the most plausible). In no way do we need to refute them or support ours; they exist independantly of each other and each offer a solution.
If we were to accept them, we accept them in relation to something else we accept. That is, I don’t accept religion, I accept that religion exists and that I am gonna have to deal with it as long as I exist because I have already accepted that belief systems exist (and religion is a special case of belief systems). The things we plainly accept are things that are (we feel) self-evident in nature or statements of (what we feel are)facts.
Another example, I tolerate zoophilia (aka bestiality) but I do not accept it.
This leads me to say that I accept the things I agree with and tolerate the stuff I disagree with (nevermind the things I hate).
I don’t know if others agree with that interpretation, though.
From my background, you cannot talk about tolerance without defining a “standard”. The standard for the ball bearing is 1 inch, but the tolerance is .01, so any ball bearing between .99 and 1.01 is “tolerated” or accepted. Without a standard the word tolerance has no meaning. We all have a standard, which we would like to have, but we will tolerate deviation from that standard. Too many people talk about increasing tolerance when all they want is to change the standard against which the tolerance is applied.
From the mind of a social engineer.
Excellent point. Tolerance is still a good thing even if you don’t change your beliefs.
For example, you are still a tolerant person if you tolerate, for example, S&M, even if don’t want your child to engage in that practice - even if you actively discourage your child from doing so.
Sua
After consideration, as a generality I’d keep it, but strictly speaking I would like to strike it from my post.
Good point, Frolix!
As a Christian, I’m obliged to apply two standards, and they’re defined in a very short Biblical passage:
[quote]
The first and greatest commandment is this: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind and soul and strength. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Pretty clearcut to me: For myself, I am to be completely committed to my God, and to my fellow man. Nothing less will do. And my standard of tolerance for them is to show the care and compassion, respect and forbearance, that I as a sinner have received from Him.
C.S. Lewis said something of the sort. I know what I’m capable of; to expect less of myself is to fall short of what I know I can do. I don’t know what they are capable of, so I need to look on their apparent faults and foibles with a forgiving eye, realizing that they’re doing the best they can by their own lights.