Review of "The Power of Tolerance: A Debate" (original) (raw)
Related papers
Acts of Tolerance: a political and descriptive account (European Journal of Political Theory, 2014)
European Journal of Political Theory, 2014
Almost all philosophical understandings of tolerance as forbearance require that the reasons for objection and/or the reasons for withholding the power to negatively interfere must be of the morally right kind. In this paper, I instead put forward a descriptive account of an act of tolerance, and argue that in the political context, at least, it has several important advantages over the standard more moralised accounts. These advantages include that it better addresses instances of intolerance and that it is able to makes sense of state acts of tolerance.
The Scope of Tolerance and Its Moral Reasoning
2004
This essay aims to consider the scope of tolerance and its moral reasoning. I first discuss the reluctance of prominent philosophers to prescribe boundaries to liberty and tolerance. I then focus attention on Rawls’ discussion on tolerance, which I find quite disappointing, yet argue that his line of reasoning on the question of tolerating the intolerant contributed to the very fashionable consequentialist approach. After criticizing the consequentialist reasoning I introduce an alternative approach: the principled reasoning. I explain that much of the liberal reasoning is inspired by the 1 . Raphael Cohen-Almagor, D.Phil. (Oxon) heads the Center for Democratic Studies, University of Haifa, Israel. He is also Chairperson of Library and Information Studies, and Assoc. Prof. at the Dept. of Communication. In 1999-2000 he was awarded the FulbrightYitzhak Rabin Award and was a Visiting Professor at UCLA School of Law and Department of Communication. In 2003-2004 he is a visiting fellow ...
Tolerance: A Virtue? Towards a Broad and Descriptive Definition of Tolerance
2008
This article focuses on the difficult issue of what exactly goes on when an individual tolerates something. It focuses on the problem of why an individual would ever choose to allow for some practice that he deems unacceptable while having the power to do something about it. After distinguishing between different attitudes (tolerant as well as intolerant), this article argues that individuals can have various reasons for deciding to tolerate what they deem wrong. As such, we defend a broad conception of tolerance, which goes against the grain of recent literature in which tolerance is generally understood as a virtue.
Towards A Diversity Beyond Tolerance
Studies in Political Economy, 2000
, Maclean's magazine ran a story on "one of Canada's most successful immigrants," British Columbia's lieutenant-governor, David See-Chai Lam. Mr. Lam, it is noted, has made considerable effort to increase understanding between Canadians and new arrivals by arguing that Canadians should celebrate rather than tolerate cultural diversity. He says "tolerance is a slightly negative word ...it's like saying, 'You smell, but I can hold my breath.' "2 Implicit in Mr. Lam's statement is a recognition that to "tolerate" and to be "tolerated" involves an unequal relationship. To tolerate, as Mirabeau and Thomas Paine put it, implies that the tolerator has the authority or the power to not tolerate) This paper provides an analysis of the social construction of the concept of "tolerance," and documents the use of the term in the Canadian media. We focus on the ways in which the news media does not only reflect group and individual relations, but also constructs these relations.' On the one level, "toleration" is celebrated as a core feature of the Canadian national identity which is a source of both national pride and international recognition. Toleration allows for an enactment of Canadian multiculturalism. At the same time, we argue that to "tolerate" is to entrench the opposition between a national "self," and groups or individuals constructed as "other" (between those who hold their breath, and those who smell!). To ensure continued "tolerance," the majority "self' is seen to take on the responsibility for setting limits (or bounds) to tolerance. Tolerance is bounded by values which are identified as positive national attributes-values such as economic stability, national cohesion, and the equality of women. Justifications are provided for adopting a minimalist approach to tolerance; this minimalist approach is seen to be necessary to protect the structures which make multiculturalism and tolerance
Context: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2023
In current intellectual discourse, some scholars believe tolerance is unnecessary to interreligious interaction, viewing it either as veiled indifference toward others and their religious idiosyncrasies, or as crude relativism rooted in denial of the truthclaims and moral obligations of religious traditions. This essay addresses these ideas, and explores the possible connotations and hermeneutics of tolerance, providing a fresh reading of its role and value within interreligious relations and dialogue. It proposes a new status for tolerance, by exploring its potential meanings and values in perception of the self, and not just of the other. It then examines Christian-Muslim relations in Middle Eastern history and their notion of tolerance and reinterprets it in light of the Qur'anic notion of 'la ikrah'. A re-conception of tolerance is proposed, which invokes a new understanding of religiosity and religious affiliation: being tolerant in interreligious relations and dialogue means being one's true religious self.
Theory and praxis of religious tolerance
OGIRISI: a New Journal of African Studies
More often than not, intolerance is extremely rejected in favour of tolerance simply because of the belief that the latter produces a better chance of inter-personal relationship in a pluralistic society. In this sense tolerance will mean to allow others to practise their religious belief without hindrance. While the term 'allow' carries a legal import i.e. authorisation, toleration means only the absence of objection rather than genuine approval of another's religious belief. It is therefore the argument of this paper that tolerance already divides between the powerful and the less-powerful, the privileged and the less-privileged. It is this inherent weakness in tolerance that makes the paper to insist on frank dialogue; truth-meeting-truth.
On the Concept of Tolerance 5 September
“The subject of tolerance is very important in our pluralistic world, requiring the necessity of transcending and overcoming intolerant outlooks, and by recognizing the right of diversity, a prerequisite for the flourishing of democracy and human rights in society. The quest for tolerance is tantamount to making the phenomenon of diversity a reality, so that a dialogue might take place between individuals and groups. “Contemporary studies have shown that the concept of tolerance had existed prior to our modern times. It was necessary for the rise of a peaceful coexistence within society. It had not always been observed because political authorities often imposed their outlooks on society. On occasion, they acknowledged the legality of pluralist groups, affording them minimal freedoms, in harmony with the values of the time.