Stephen Moriarty
On Tolerance
(I believe that J S Mill wrote an essay of this title. I haven’t read it. What I am trying to do here is set out my own thoughts.)
Religious tolerance is really agnosticism or atheism. If I believe that members of another faith do not take their religion seriously, then I may feel I have the luxury of granting them the right to go through the motions of their religion, safe in the knowledge that they will allow me to go through the motions of mine. If I suspect that they take their religion seriously, I would be very brave as an atheist or agnostic to allow them to proselytise successfully if their religion contains any indication that they have a tendency to treat non-believers as inferiors. If I take my own religion seriously, and it also contains some element of disdain for non-believers, I would be only too convinced of the folly and danger of so doing. Some religions may forbid action to prevent such proselytisation by other religions, but it behoves politicians to protect all their citizens, martyrs or not. We must conclude that it is not tolerance that brings religious peace, but rather that religious peace brings tolerance, wisely or no.
It must be in the minds of most liberals that contact with other religions breeds atheism or agnosticism en soi. We must ask, however, does contact between religion and agnosticism or atheism have a similar result, or might it be that, in this case, religion is the beneficiary? Following commandments from faith and fear of god is one way of organising society, and it may appear to some to have advantages over “tolerance”, secular-law, free-love and market-forces. Allowing religious proselytisation, then, can only be done with the knowledge that religion may win and tolerance may lose.
Secular tolerance is sometimes a regrettable necessity. It may be politic, but it is hardly a virtue. I may, for the sake of argument, disapprove of certain lifestyles or businesses, not because of the harm people do to themselves – that is none of my business – but rather because of their tendency to drag other people down into the gutter with them (this is discours indirect libre!). I might decide to tolerate people like this because it is impossible to frame and/or enforce laws that interrupt their lifestyles without encroaching on the liberties of other people, and I might frequently make this argument; but I would never renounce my right to say exactly what I think of these people. We do not need freedom of speech to enjoy the dubious right to be tolerated, we need it so that we can explain our disapproval. In this way we might persuade, and thus avoid legislation, or worse. Tolerance, then, is an act rather than an attitude, except when it refers to a willingness to allow other people the maximum of individual self-determination consistent with the rights of others. This kind of tolerance, however, is a logical consequence of “liberty”.
The only consistent position for the attitudinally-tolerant (as opposed to people who speak their minds) is complete laissez-faire. If one is willing to concede that one may be wrong about something and that the other fellow may be right, then why not tolerate murderers and bank-robbers? The moment one admits that there are limits to tolerance, that law is sometimes necessary (and surely nearly everyone can agree that certain actions are beyond the Pale) the concept becomes devoid of virtue: one tolerates because one doesn’t feel sufficiently certain that it is wrong, or because it is not very wrong (when we might feel that it is a matter of “give and take”), or because there is no practical alternative.
This “wrongness” must include a judgment as to whether something poses a threat to oneself or one’s loved-ones. One cannot be obliged to tolerate a mortal-danger or a danger to one’s liberties. This may limit one’s assessment of the scope of individual self-determination, if one sees mortal-danger in, for instance, a refusal to do National Service, or in an adherence to a disloyal ideology. Neither can we expect other people to tolerate something they are too weak to prevent; instead we should join cause to defend the rights of all.
In conclusion: “tolerance” is an unhelpful idea because it is usually a misnomer for something else – the consequences of liberty or reason, or of weakness.
Apart from trivial issues tolerance of others’ behaviour is not a matter of right or wrong. Tolerance is quietly ignoring other people acting in ways which you do not wish to follow or even consider to be against their better interests. Watching out for your neighbour is all very well but it can become a form of intolerance if too much tutt tutting goes on or too many helpful suggestions about the colour of their front door.
It is no party of tolerance to promote or finance the other guy’s preferences. That is why I strongly object to state funding of minority activities. If Mandelson has not got enough money by now to finance the gay pride march or the Royal Opera House they should start charging economic admission prices. My tolerant attitude leads me to make no comment, at least outside my own circle and home, to the subsidies and other state sponsorship of these and other minority activities.
Many of my activities are minority ones but the metropolitan loud moths who specify about tolerance do not put their hand in anyone’s pocket to finance my interests.
If the reader looks again at the second paragraph and substitutes current political dogma in place of “religion” it will be seen that a large state cannot be tolerant. As the size and scope of the state extends beyond the roles reasonably necessary to carry out communally it is bound to adopt intolerance typical of religious believers. Consider how anyone is denied access to the media and press and is vilified if they speak or write of their doubts about MMGW or membership of the EU or nuclear missiles etc. These issues in a big state become matters of belief which cannot be opposed.
More topically, consider how Scandinavian and German criminal law systems have suppressed news of offences by people their political class currently seeks to champion; a bit of a change in only two generations, but the same point of intolerance.
Stephen,
Well done for taking the trouble to write down and to publish your thoughts on such an important issue.
My own short answer to the question “Is there a god?” is, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.” Therefore, as I said on the Adam Young thread, my view on religion boils down to: “If you let me have my religion – or lack of it – I’ll let you have yours.” I will allow those who so wish to worship whatever deity they want in whatever way they want, as long as they don’t try to browbeat or to force me (or others) into joining (or leaving) any religious sect, including their own. That, to me, is what religious tolerance is.
As far as secular tolerance goes, I make a distinction between tolerating what people are and tolerating what they do. If someone behaves courteously towards me and others, I don’t care about things like what colour their skin is, where they were born, what religion they were brought up in or what their sexual preferences are with consenting adults; I will do my best to behave courteously towards them in return. On the other hand, there are certain acts which I do not tolerate from anyone, regardless of who they may be. For example: Committing or supporting violent aggressions, like wars in Iraq or Syria. Supporting political policies intended to harm innocent people. Violating human rights or freedoms such as property, privacy or freedom of association (including religious association). Lying or hypocrisy about any matter of importance. All these are examples of acts I do not tolerate.
In a nutshell, I tolerate individual differences, but I don’t tolerate what I consider to be crimes, including anything that violates my rights or others’. So, I can certainly agree with the kind of tolerance you call, “a willingness to allow other people the maximum of individual self-determination consistent with the rights of others.” But it’s those last few words, “consistent with the rights of others,” which are of course the key.
All this considered, while I can agree with much of what you say here, I can’t support your conclusion that tolerance is an unhelpful idea. For me, tolerance is one of the key ideas coming out of the Enlightenment. And, if we Westerners are to have any justification at all for considering our culture superior to others, it is that our culture encourages those, who take it seriously, to be tolerant of difference where other cultures do not.
No rational man can tolerate — i.e., abide, stand, or put up with — that which he sees to be false, not in his own life, mind or actions, not when he has any alternative in the matter. Since dedication to reality is the essence of the moral and of the practical, the false qua false is precisely the intolerable.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/religion-and-morality/Fact-and-Value
Thank you for these responses. I need to think a bit before I try to respond!
For what it is worth. from a historical perspective, Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration” is more of a key source than Mill. at least in my opinion. I love it even though I totally agree with Leonard Peikoff [above] but you can see why Auberon Herbert described the English as the gentlest people who ever lived.