Toleration, Justice and Reason

Usually when contemporary debates based on the thoughts and the issues related to multicultural society, the role of toleration plays vital but by no means clear and unconsented part. For an instance, it is an acceptable state of mutual respect or esteem, although it is at best a practical and at worst an oppressive relationship between individual or team. In the following scenario, I would like to suggest a thought of toleration which helps in explaining and avoiding these uncertainties. At very first, I differentiate among general idea and other many particular ideas of toleration. The short discussion presents that the idea of toleration must be capable to be resolved. Based on that, there are four major conceptions of toleration which has been focused but I do not agree with one of them i.e. “respect conception”, on normative fields, although I drew its implications based on epistemology turned out to be different. The major thesis which I have focused on is that toleration is a virtue of justice and a reason for demand. The summary is gain taken up by two absurdities which has been mentioned at starting point and the way they are solved by the thoughts I suggest.

The concept of toleration and its paradoxes

The common concept of toleration is basically determined by six major features which is outlined in this paper briefly.

1. At first, there is always a specific “context of toleration” which means the relation between the one who tolerate and the tolerated one. For an example, relation between parents and children, among friends, among members of any religious or traditional community, among citizens and among strangers as well who do not share any of these particular contexts. Based on these contexts, the main motives for toleration and for its limits may vary. On the contrary, the query takes place as who are the subjects of toleration. They are either individuals, groups or the entire state. In addition to thus, query arises as whether the objects of toleration are single acts, or practices or beliefs in order to name some possibilities (Brown and Forst, 2014).

• It is important to the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are usually arbitrated to be unreal or ugly; also can be named as “objection element”. If this element lacks, there is either indifferences or affirmation-two major attitudes where not compatible with the term toleration. The objection should be normatively substantive, however it is not significantly prohibited to moral explanations; for, when deliberating the idea of toleration commonly, it will not be appropriate to eliminate another forms of normative critique which includes aesthetic critique (Kemp, 2012).

• Apart from “objection element”, toleration also needs a positive “acceptance element”. This do not cancel the undesirable judgement yet provides some positive details which undermine the negative ones in the pertinent context (Lozano and Escrich, 2017).The supposed practices or beliefs, then, are known to be unreal, yet not intolerably unreal. In the scenario where objection and the acceptance reasons are known as “moral”, this might mead to highly argued paradox as to how it can be ethically right or real or even a duty in order to bear what is bad or unreal. So, to encounter such paradox, a conception of toleration is needed which will brief the actual gist of “moral” and “right vs wrong or bad” in a better way (Cook and Conrad, 2010).

• The idea of toleration involves the concept of few “limits of toleration”. They are unreal at the point where causes for rejection become solid than the causes of acceptance (somethings that still arises a query of the actual means of intervention). It is vital to visualize the causes for rejection must not be similar to the causes of objection. They can be sovereign internally linked to the causes of acceptance, which signifies some conditions and limitations for that acceptance.  In addition to this, this should be thought that there are two major limits which are highly involved. One lies between the normative realm of the practices and beliefs that one agrees with and realm of the tolerance practices and beliefs which one finds unreal yet acceptable in some ways (Edyvane, 2017). The second lies between this latter realm and the intolerable realm which is strongly prohibited. Other paradox take place here i.e. toleration significantly suggests intolerance against those who are visualized as intolerable and which can be defined by those limitations. The idea of tolerance does not make sense in absence if some limits, although as soon as there are explained, tolerance looks to turn into nothing but intolerance. Thus, there is no true tolerance (Forst, 2020).

• The use of toleration cannot end from compulsion, meanwhile the tolerating subjects would then be beneath an impossibility of voicing the objections and act based on it. If this was the scenario, they will simply “endure” or “suffer” some practices or beliefs contrary to which they are powerless. To summarize form this, nevertheless, that the tolerating party should be in a socially dominant position, with a power in order to interfere with the practices in question, is not justifies. A minority who do not have such type of power might be considered as tolerant and convinced that under such cases if it had power, it would not misuse it.

• Lastly, toleration as a practice and tolerance as an attitude should be differentiated. A legal political practice inside the state which takes the guarantee of some liberties to minorities might be known as tolerant, as could also the personal attitude of accepting some practices one might feel objectionable. Although the former, can take place without the latter, for an instance, where a state grants some power to minorities although the maximum of its citizens might not agrees with such type of policy, whereas the government acts on wholly strategic motives. An interpretation of toleration which is emphasized on political structural level of the thoughtful coexistence of several cultural groups. However, leaves open the major query as to that type of attitude or virtue of tolerance citizens of a state can assume from other (Forst, 2013).

Conceptions of toleration

These discussion of conceptions presents another understandings of what toleration consist which can be found in the society in order to know the meaning of toleration.

The initial one I refer is the permission conception. Toleration is defined as relationship among authority and dissenting. Toleration later meant that the minority are given permission by majority to live based on majority beliefs (Forst, 2007). This type pf tolerance is not expensive and it do not hamper civil peace as well. However, it is not morally right way where people are forced to live life based on other beliefs. Such type of toleration is considered to be an insult which is unreal and bad.

The second conception is called co-existence conception. It is same as permission conception. Here, also tolerance is misunderstood. However, it is explained in a pragmatic way. Here, majorly do not lead minority wholly but on one of groups for the sake of peace. These groups choose peaceful coexistence over conflict. The relation is horizontal and mutual tolerance is accepted which helps to develop trust.

The third one is respect toleration where both the parties respect each other. Majority and minority have equal legal and political status with different beliefs on life and cultural practices. They respect one another as moral-political equals as far as their distribution of resources and recognition of rights are concerned (Galeotti and Elisabetta, 2002).

In some debates on toleration, extra conception is available which I named is esteem conception. This refers to having some ethical esteem for other members as well. Their beliefs might be different from ours but it should be respected. This type of conception is also known as reserved esteem where one might consider a positive acceptance is one of the best way (Horton and Mendus, 2013).

Now the query is how can we decide the most justified conceptions among all these. As far as what is said above, it looks like the idea of toleration fails to provide an answer to the query, however, there are so many conceptions related to toleration has been defined. Thus, no concept can help so solve the query. These concepts are called normative dependent concepts (Jones, 2007). My thesis is that the idea of justice more particularly, a few conception of justice in relation to notion of practical causes can help with such a content.

Justice and the threshold of reciprocity and generality

The cause for the claims I did that a conception of justice is important while arguing for conception of toleration is that the context in which the query of toleration among citizens take place in a context of justice: what the problem is that it is mutually justifiable- legal and political structure of a pluralistic political community of citizens who have dissimilar ethical beliefs (Allen, 2016). Thus, toleration is considered to be virtue of justice. My thesis is while considering query of justice, I must be able to show that in its form of ‘qualitative equality’, the ‘respect conception’ is greater than others.

I also believe that between the center of conception of political and social justice, there can be theory of intersubjective justification. This means how important right can be justified and accepted by all citizens. Reciprocity should also be involved which means A can claim if he is not justified by B. B cannot force A to accept the things beyond A’s wishes (Berger, 2008). A should also justify the reasons for not accepting things. If A denies to compromise beyond B truth and justification, A should be claimed later. Thus, reciprocity can be used but it is not the justified from. Things cannot be generalized in this ways (Brown, 2009).

At the end, the validity of ethical values for an individual is based on affirmation of these values through this an individual in specific ethical identity, and if such identification is impossible, the disagreement dependent on such values has no sense. At the end, it is an individual who has got the right to determine the right direction of life. For an instance, homosexual marriage can be reciprocally justified as an extension of equal rights. However, it cannot be justified when it comes to moral concept (Newey, 2013). As a citizen, an individual does not have right to have their own ethical identity respected equally, however they have no right to their ethical beliefs. This is the main issue of permission conception. Similarly, equal respect means common social practices that should be sensitive to ethical differences (Goldstein, 2000).

Resolving the paradoxes

Based on the above information mentioned, in conclusion, let me shortly return to the two major paradoxes of toleration which has been outlined at the very starting point and determine if the conception which has been proposed by me can resolve or avoid them. Shortly mentioned, the initial paradox includes in the issues of how it is ethically right and what ethically wrong to tolerate. As per the arguments mentioned earlier, one can believe that it is morally necessary of reasonable individuals in order to justify norms that they believe should be commonly binding for each with reciprocally and commonly justifiable causes (Müller, 2005). It is sensible that they must respect the epistemic and ethical power of another individual who have moral beliefs separate from his own- i.e. beliefs that they might not agree with and even thinks morally bad and not sufficient enough to solve the query to a good life, however that they could not indict of violating the boundary which has been set by the circumstances of reciprocity and generality. It is ethically necessary and right to tolerate what one finds ethically not agreeable and bad inside the limitations of reasonableness and reciprocity which should be accepted by everyone; the truth that one finds certain beliefs and practices morally bad do not make them unreasonable to hold or immoral. However, the paradox is evaded by illuminating the acceptance, objection and rejection elements of toleration with the usage of differences among moral and ethical justification (McKinnon, 2007).

Another paradox state that toleration, as early as its limits are redefined by some content, seems to be intolerant to those “outside”. Answering to this, everyone is dependent on if one needs to call both the suppression if any form of dissent and the suppression of this of suppression “intolerance”. However, this might not be used properly: nay form of moral critique cannot be known as intolerance, because then we might misplace the idea of toleration wholly. Besides, by sketching the “limits of toleration” with the help of the criteria of reciprocity and generality, we sketch them, as I have also made an effort to argue, in the broadest possible ways mentioned the existence of a huge diversity of world-views, without sacrificing one for the sake of unjustifiable claims of other. However, there is absence of arbitrary substantive content which can be referred to tolerable, this content is widely open to argue and dispute, and safety is provided to those voices who are in danger and problem of being marginalized. Those who are against the common form of mutual respect which is implied by that has no right to claim to be the victims of intolerance. For an instance, not only the meaning of the concept of toleration but concept of justice will also be vanished and lose its significance.

References

Allen, Amy. The end of progress: Decolonizing the normative foundations of critical theory. Columbia University Press, 2016.

Berger, Benjamin L. “The cultural limits of legal tolerance.” Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 21.2 (2008): 245-277.

Brown, Wendy, and Rainer Forst. The power of tolerance: A debate. Columbia University Press, 2014.

Brown, Wendy. Regulating aversion: Tolerance in the age of identity and empire. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Cook, Philip, and Conrad Heilmann. “Censorship and two types of self-censorship.” Available at SSRN 1575662 (2010).

Edyvane, Derek. “Toleration and civility.” Social Theory and Practice 43.3 (2017): 449-471.

Forst, Rainer. “Abbreviations of the works of Rainer Forst.” Toleration, power and the right to justification. Manchester University Press, 2020.

Forst, Rainer. “To tolerate means to insult: Toleration, recognition, and emancipation.” Recognition and power: Axel Honneth and the tradition of critical social theory (2007): 215-237.

Forst, Rainer. Toleration in conflict: Past and present. No. 103. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Galeotti, Anna Elisabetta. Toleration as recognition. Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Goldstein, Robert Justin, ed. The war for the public mind: Political censorship in nineteenth-century Europe. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.

Horton, John, and Susan Mendus, eds. Aspects of toleration. Vol. 41. Routledge, 2013.

Jones, Peter. “Making sense of political toleration.” British Journal of Political Science 37.3 (2007): 383-402.

Kemp, Geoff. “The ‘End of Censorship’and the Politics of Toleration, from Locke to Sacheverell.” Parliamentary History 31.1 (2012): 47-68.

Lozano, J. Félix, and Teresa Escrich. “Cultural diversity in business: A critical reflection on the ideology of tolerance.” Journal of Business Ethics 142.4 (2017): 679-696.

McKinnon, Catriona. Toleration: A critical introduction. Routledge, 2007.

Müller, Jan-Werner. “Toleration in Contexts.” European Journal of Political Theory 4.4 (2005): 467-470.

Newey, Glen. Toleration in political conflict. Cambridge University Press, 2013.