I've had similar thoughts about the word "tolerance." When I was in high school, I was involved in a program with the ADL; one of the women who trained us mentioned that tolerance wasn't necessarily the best word for how we should treat others, because of the implication that one "tolerates" annoying things like bugs, rather than respecting other people's ideas and viewpoints.
I think tolerance is fine as long as it doesn't extend to tolerating views that are disrespectful of other people; you're right that conservatives have tried to twist it to mean that. They'll call us "intolerant" if we don't think they should have the right to restrict women's reproductive rights or discriminate against gays; I call that bullshit.
Therefore, I think respect is a better ideal to strive for than tolerance. I'd rather be respected than tolerated any day.
Although there are certain instances in which a "a half-hearted "Ok, whatever works for you'" may not be such a bad thing. Ginmar recently posted on how furries and real-person fiction writers creep her out, but she realizes that although she finds them weird, they aren't hurting anyone, unlike the religious right who want to push their oppressive views onto the rest of us. In that case, tolerance of another's quirks that we find icky but harmless might be good enough. But when it comes to serious opinions, viewpoints, or background differences, respect seems to be the best rule to go by.
Sparklegirl--
You are absolutely right that "respect" is the word I am looking for.
You might be right that some tolerance of things we don't like but don't hurt us is good. I need to think more about this however. I wonder if the particular example you use from Ginmar is an example of this type of tolerance. Afterall, it appears that Ginmar's response is more thoughtful and considered than mere tolerance. I dunno?
The tolerance ploy is a great one -- a classic false dilemma trap that conservatives can set for progressives that we'll walk into every time. (Apologies for the length of what follows.)
Here's how it works, and why it doesn't.
Folks on the left have as a central core proposition that people or institutions who claim to have exclusive possesion of unrevisable truth and/or principles of moral rightness and who demand unquestioning adherence are to be avioded at all costs. This is why blind patriotic correctness and certain forms of institutional religion are seen as deeply problematic. The realization is that even our most cherished beliefs may in time be shown to be wrong, there is something to be learned from folks who see or do things differently, and that when we hand over our minds to some authority -- even one that is claiming to protect us from earthly or other worldly evil -- we are inviting serious abuses of our loyalty by those in power. The examples are legion. From this desire to avoid aboslutism, we move to a position of tolerance. Since no one knows everything, we need to allow everyone a seat at the table -- indeed, the history of liberalism, both classical and contemporary, can be seen as an attempt to enlarge the conversation, to bring in the voices of those who have not been allowed to speak.
But here's the trick. Just because you allow everyone to speak, does not mnean that what everyone says is equally valid. Some factual claims are demonstrably false and some ethical proposals are morally unacceptable. These claims ought to be heard and on the basis of rational evaluation rejected. (I know -- who's to say what's rational...addressed below, hang on) Once rejected, they do not and should not enjoy equal status with those alternatives still in play. The false dilemma that the left falls into is the move that because we want to avoid being cultural imperialists, we must allow all practices as allowable. Because we want to avoid being close-minded dogmatists, we must allow all claims to be treated as equally acceptable. But just because it is false that there is one and only one person named "Steve" does not mean that all people are so named. We can avoid being absolutists without being relativists. We can be pluralists -- there's more than one right answer, but plenty of wrong ones -- or we can be process absolutists -- there is a single right answer, we do not and may not ever have it completely, but through the process of critical evaluation we aqcuire better and better understanding of it, we come closer and closer.
What the conservatives do here is use the false dilemma about tolerance as a trojan horse. They know we are committed to tolerance and don't understand the false dilemma. They take advantage of that misunderstanding coupled with the fact that the left takes itself to be bound by rules of tolerance that they themselves aren't bound by. Since we proclaim tolerance and they don't, we have to accept their claims, but they can call us traitors, moonbats, baby-killers,... for our claims. Real substantive conversations need never happen.
Avoiding the trap means embracing real tolerance, critical tolerance not relativism. In reality, we will often find ourselves in the position where we do not have means to choose between mutually exclusive alternatives, good but inconclusive arguments will have been marshalled on each side. In such cases, tolerance is called for. But tolerance does not mean mere live and let live; passionate, rational debate on the issue ought to continue.
What is this rational process? In the case of factual claims, the arbitor is science. In the case of moral propositions, real life ethical deliberation tends to be a balancing act between several factors: the universalizability of the acts (never lie is preferable to always lie), the effect that the act will have in general, the effect that the act will have on me and those I care about, and whether the act impinges upon the rights of others. In most cases, these factors align, in the tough cases they don't and we have to determine which factor ought to take precedent. This is where social discussion and tolerance comes in.
Aren't these mechanisms just another form of blind dogmatism? No. First, both are methods and not doctrines. They do not prescribe answers but the playing field upon which possible answers are considered. Second, both account for the fact that any given belief may be justified by prevailing knowledge at the time only to be overturned later. They are evolutionary processes.
Tolerance is good -- anyone who disagrees ought to be smacked -- but tolerance does not mean anything goes, critical does not mean intolerant.
Tsing Tao Say:
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance.
(Samuel Taylor Coleridge)
Tolerance is the oil which takes the friction out of life.
(Wilbert E. Scheer)
The highest result of education is tolerance.
(Helen Keller)
I actually wrote a similar post on my blog about the use of tolerance as a political tool. I'm glad I am not the only one who finds it hypocritical for conservative republicans to advocate "objective" this and "objective" that, and yet preach tolerance when it comes to items on their own agenda.
http://modernstoic.blogspot.com/...s-on-
truth.html
I really appreciate this discussion. Some excellent points (Aspazia and SteveG's addition). I have had problems in my own mind coming to terms with the need to be tolerant of others to avoid absolutism, but equally distaste the relativism this leads to. Relativism really undermines with the inevitable response you receive "well, thats only your opinion". Which is a really nasty and underhanded way to argue.
One of SteveG's points ends :
"In most cases, these factors align, in the tough cases they don't and we have to determine which factor ought to take precedent. This is where social discussion and tolerance comes in."
Which I feel unease with, when I really felt we were getting somewhere with SteveG's proposal of 'process absolutism'.
We end again with the problems of 'tolerance' and it feels a circular argument when we are redefining what tolerance actually involves (or should involve).
Its important to be able to argue a morally defensible position for all arguments on what is actually right. "Process absolutism" does indeed sound the way forward, to minimise where tolerance becomes necessary. Tolerance does seem like a failure to find the correct answer to a problem, and becomes a temporary 'hold point', until the morally right answer can be rationalised out. We should therefore aim to avoid tolerance where possible(!), by striving to limit where it may reside -if indeed our aim is to persue the 'correct' answer.
I fear this too would end up more like 'moral absolutism' solely. Although this is our aim! However, at least it would be based on well reasoned decision making by morally conscionable people. Assuming those who make all decisions are capable of this, which is where this starts to break down! Hence the requirement for those individuals who are to hold such people to task when this occurs!
Commenting by HaloScan
