Toleration of intolerance

[McCulloch]

Toleration
Is it possible to be a tolerant society?

The proposition that we ought to tolerate the views of others, or that it is right not to interfere with others, is precluded by the very strictures of the theory. [...]But if this moral principle [of tolerance] is recognized as valid, it can of course be employed as an instrument for criticizing such cultural practices as the denial of human rights to minorities and such beliefs as that of racial superiority. A moral commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably to the abandonment of normative relativism. (equip.org)

Thus, one of the foundational beliefs (tolerance) of the secular moralists crumbles when looked at objectively.

Can secular moralists value tolerance? Can we be tolerant of intolerance? Should we be tolerant of intolerance? Does this paradox destroy the idea of a consistent secular morality?

[micatala]

This is a good question. It seems if one takes the absolutist position that tolerence means everything must be tolerated, including intolerance, then we do have a paradox.

I think a partial answer to this is to explicitly put in the qualifications that we typically tend to do anyway between the lines.

A crude, but good initial approximation to a reasonable way to qualify this is to "tolerate everything that does not infringe upon the rights of others."

This of course, gets into the whole can of worms that has been discussed elsewhere regarding what rights are, are they government endowed or creator endowed, what specific rights should be granted, etc.

With respect to whether we should tolerate intolerance, I would say the law should most definitely and absolutely tolerate its citizens having intolerant attitudes, and even to some extent, behaviors, as long as this does not rise to the level of violence or infringing upon other agreed upon rights. People should feel free not to associate with any individuals or groups they wish to in their personal interactions.

With respect to businesses, I think we have to be less tolerant of intolerance, although this can be tricky. A hot dog stand that refuses to serve blacks would, in my book, be a problem. However, a private golf club with a "membership" (e.g. Augusta National) might want to exclude women. Should they be allowed to do this? Could the hot dog stand "go private" and create its own membership list, only allowing members (e.g. white people who sign the membership list on the clipboard) to buy hot dogs?

[Goat]

Toleration
Is it possible to be a tolerant society?

The proposition that we ought to tolerate the views of others, or that it is right not to interfere with others, is precluded by the very strictures of the theory. [...]But if this moral principle [of tolerance] is recognized as valid, it can of course be employed as an instrument for criticizing such cultural practices as the denial of human rights to minorities and such beliefs as that of racial superiority. A moral commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably to the abandonment of normative relativism. (equip.org)

Thus, one of the foundational beliefs (tolerance) of the secular moralists crumbles when looked at objectively.

Can secular moralists value tolerance? Can we be tolerant of intolerance? Should we be tolerant of intolerance? Does this paradox destroy the idea of a consistent secular morality?

It all depends. There ARE limits to tolerance. It all depends on where you define those limits. I am sure that even among the 'secular humanists', the limits differ from person to person.

I believe in a more tolerant society, probably similar to 'secular humanists' in many respects. One key point that
I have often heard from a number of sources is 'The right for you to wave your fist ends at my nose'.

I believe from Easyrider is building a strawman of what 'tolerance' is to a secular humanist, and is then proceding to 'tear down' a misrepresentation of what 'toleration' is.

I will further clarify that 'tolerance' is to allow people to be themselves, as long as they do not harm others, nor disrupt other peoples rights.

[sue]

With respect to whether we should tolerate intolerance, I would say the law should most definitely and absolutely tolerate its citizens having intolerant attitudes, and even to some extent, behaviors, as long as this does not rise to the level of violence or infringing upon other agreed upon rights. People should feel free not to associate with any individuals or groups they wish to in their personal interactions.

I'd agree, and the housing laws in the US reflect this. The Fair Housing Act says that it is illegal for a landlord to deny rental based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. However, it is quite legal for roommates to discriminate who they choose to live with based on sex, behaviors, sexuality and any other criteria they wish.

[Goat]

With respect to whether we should tolerate intolerance, I would say the law should most definitely and absolutely tolerate its citizens having intolerant attitudes, and even to some extent, behaviors, as long as this does not rise to the level of violence or infringing upon other agreed upon rights. People should feel free not to associate with any individuals or groups they wish to in their personal interactions.

I'd agree, and the housing laws in the US reflect this. The Fair Housing Act says that it is illegal for a landlord to deny rental based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap. However, it is quite legal for roommates to discriminate who they choose to live with based on sex, behaviors, sexuality and any other criteria they wish.

Some of the local ordinances in different states do add 'sexual preference' to that list the the landlords must use.