Even before he assumed the Petrine office as head of the Catholic Church, Joseph Ratzinger already carries the reputation of being one of the most important figures, not only of the Catholic intellectual tradition, but more so of the theological enterprise of the twentieth century. A closer appreciation of his thought which delves into the relevant discussions of the time, such as those that tackle pluralism and relativism, further reveals that more than a theologian, Ratzinger is a ‘thinker’ capable of (...) dialoguing with intellectuals of any background. This noncompromising openness to the ideas that challenge his own gives credence to the range and depth of the beliefs that he holds and proclaims to the world. This paper presents Ratzinger’s insights that elicit a philosophical analysis based on the themes that concern the relevance of belief – the Christian faith – to the theoretical and practical movements of the contemporary period. (shrink)
Moral abolitionists claim that morality ought to be abolished. According to one of their most prominent arguments, this is because making moral judgments renders people significantly less tolerant toward anyone who holds divergent views. In this paper we investigate the hypothesis that morality’s tolerance-decreasing effect only occurs if people are realists about moral issues, i.e., they interpret these issues as objectively grounded. We found support for this hypothesis (Studies 1 and 2). Yet, it also turned out that the intolerance associated (...) with realism is mediated by moral conviction and perceived consensus. People tend to feel more strongly about those moral issues they ground objectively and, in doing so, are more prone to display the vice of moral smugness toward those who disagree with them. The remedy for this that has been recommended is humility which we found (Study 3) is indeed related to reduced intolerance, in part by predicting a reduction in realism, but also in part through a direct connection to intolerance. These results put pressure on abolitionists’ “argument from intolerance.”. (shrink)
On Compromise is an argument against contemporary liberal society's tendency to view compromise as an unalloyed good--politically, ethically, and artistically. In a series of clear, convincing essays, Rachel Greenwald Smith discusses the dangers of thinking about compromise as an end, rather than as a means. To illustrate her points, she recounts her stint in a band as a bass player, fighting with her bandmates about 'what the song wants,' and then moves outward to Bikini Kill and the Riot Grrrl movement, (...) the Iowa Writers' Workshop, Poetry magazine, the resurgence of fascism, and other wide-ranging topics. (shrink)
Written from the perspective of a liberal intellectual who has spent a lifetime as a writer, editor, and college professor, The Tyranny of Virtue is a precise and nuanced insider's look at shifts in American culture--most especially in the American academy--that so many people find alarming. Part memoir and part polemic, an anatomy of important and dangerous ideas, and a cri de coeur lamenting the erosion of standard liberal values, Boyers's collection of essays is devoted to such subjects as tolerance, (...) identity, privilege, appropriation, diversity, and ableism that have turned academic life into a minefield. Why, Robert Boyers asks, are a great many liberals, people who should know better, invested in the drawing up of enemies lists and driven by the conviction that on critical issues no dispute may be tolerated? In stories, anecdotes, and character profiles, a public intellectual and longtime professor takes on those in his own progressive cohort who labor in the grip of a poisonous and illiberal fundamentalism. The end result is a finely tuned work of cultural intervention from the front lines."--Inside front book jacket flap. (shrink)
Tolerance according to John Locke -- Voltaire and modern tolerance -- Tolerance in America -- Tolerance in the Ottoman Empire -- Tolerance in Venice -- On blasphemy -- Multicultural tolerance -- Of veils and unveiling -- New restrictions, new forms of tolerance -- Should we tolerate the enemies of tolerance? -- Tolerance in the age of terrorism.
A number of widely discussed court decisions on cases of insults against religious feelings in Russia, such as the relatively recent “Pokemon Go” case of blogger Ruslan Sokolovsky or the lawsuit filed against an Orthodox priest by Nikolai Ryabchevsky in Yekaterinburg for comparing Lenin with Hitler, make pertinent the question of why toleration becomes so difficult in matters concerning religion. In this paper, I revise the classical liberal concept of toleration (David Heyd, Peter Nicholson, and John Horton), arguing that it (...) is challenged by contemporary philosophers, who see no room for applying this concept in the “domain of identities”. The most prominent case of “primordial” identity, that is, the notion of identity as a given, is the claim of devoted believers for recognition. Should we replace the principle of toleration by the principle of recognition since the latter better corresponds to identity claims? To address this question, in the first part of the article I describe the mechanism of tolerant attitude (Nicholson, Heyd) and in the second part, I analyze the debates about the possibility or impossibility of inner religious toleration (Avishai Margalit, Cary Nederman, and Maxim Khomyakov) and further compare toleration and recognition as normative principles. In the light of the debates I took part in the conference hosted by the University of Southern Denmark in October 2019 as part of the project “Religious Majority/Minority in Public Space in Russia and Northern Europe: Historical-Cultural Analysis”, I come to the conclusion that the principle of toleration is preferable to the principle of recognition because the “second-order” arguments for toleration in a secular state will be universally acceptable (pragmatic argument) and, therefore, the principle of toleration is more logical (analytical argument). Following Peter John’s thesis about minimal recognition embedded in toleration, it may also be concluded that we need a normatively charged idea of citizenship, which could provide us with universal “second-order” foundation. (shrink)
Introduction -- How tolerance & cooperation can build character & leadership skills -- Politics, human rights & the world around you -- Using newspapers & other media to understand the world around you -- The importance of racial & religious tolerance -- Understanding other people's needs -- Learning to work with others -- Friends & relationships.
Toleration matters to us all. It contributes both to individuals leading good lives and to societies that are simultaneously efficient and just. There are personal and social matters that would be improved by taking toleration to be a fundamental value. This book develops and defends a full account of toleration—what it is, why and when it matters, and how it should be manifested in a just society. Cohen defends a normative principle of toleration grounded in a new conception of freedom (...) as freedom from harm. He goes on to argue that the moral limits of toleration have been reached only when freedom from harm is impinged. These arguments provide support for extensive toleration of a wide range of individual, familial, religious, cultural, and market activities. _Toleration Matters_ will be of interest to political philosophers and theorists, legal scholars, and those interested in matters of social justice. (shrink)
Everyone has the ability to be tolerant. But what does that mean? Readers will learn through examples in a fun question and answer format that having respect for others whose beliefs, ideas, and backgrounds are different than yours shows tolerance.
In the so-called modern age, a transition can be observed in Western thought regarding this issue of tolerance. A perceptible shift can be seen in the understanding of tolerance as mere endurance to attempts to conceive of tolerance as a kind of well-grounded acceptance. It is regrettable, however, that this change in thinking has often remained hypothetical rather than heuristic. This certainly has to do with the fact that most of the time only large-scale theological, philosophical, or political projects were (...) negotiated. In this case, as is often happens, the directly concerned individual, the concrete person in the course of the demonstration efforts, was lost. We want to counter this loss with our study. In our investigation, which is based on a phenomenological reflection, we want to examine tolerance and respect as an existential problem couched within an individual. We wish to consider a person who desires to be tolerant and respectful; a person who accepts tolerance and respect as an existential task. (shrink)
A religious worldview cannot expect the same kinds of tolerance as racial, gender, or sexual identities. Here’s why... -/- ... How should the Left understand and practise religious tolerance in the face of the emphasis that various groups now place on the value of their religious identities? This is a question that has, of course, become tangled up with overlapping issues, such as racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and various forms of nationalist xenophobia. But we should keep these issues separate and focus (...) on the difficult enough question of the relationship between religious toleration and identity politics. Much of the (New) Left analysis, which concentrates on the language and agendas of identity politics, has paid too little attention to a very significant distinction that falls within the various identities that have been proposed as a basis for rectifying various forms of social injustice and unequal treatment: the distinction between ideological and non-ideological identity commitments. A lack of clarity about this basic divide within identity politics has led to a serious failure to provide credible understanding of what tolerance requires when we are confronted with questions about the rights of different religious groups to be treated equally and with respect.... (shrink)
Стаття продовжує цикл опитувань, метою яких було з’ясування факторів впливу на вибір мови в білінгвальному середовищі. В аналізованому опитуванні, проведеному у Вінниці та Вінницькій області, охоплено 560 старшокласників віком 14–17 років. Результати анкетування дали змогу зробити висновки про психологічні чинники, що впливають на респондента, який перебуває в двомовному середовищі.
In a pluralistic society such as ours, tolerance is a virtue -- but it doesn't always seem so. Some suspect that it entangles us in unacceptable moral compromises and inequalities of power, while others dismiss it as mere political correctness or doubt that it can safeguard the moral and political relationships we value. Tolerance among the Virtues provides a vigorous defense of tolerance against its many critics and shows why the virtue of tolerance involves exercising judgment across a variety of (...) different circumstances and relationships -- not simply applying a prescribed set of rules. Drawing inspiration from St. Paul, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein, John Bowlin offers a nuanced inquiry into tolerance as a virtue. He explains why the advocates and debunkers of toleration have reached an impasse, and he suggests a new way forward by distinguishing the virtue of tolerance from its false look-alikes, and from its sibling, forbearance. Some acts of toleration are right and good, while others amount to indifference, complicity, or condescension. Some persons are able to draw these distinctions well and to act in accord with their better judgment. When we praise them as tolerant, we are commending them as virtuous. Bowlin explores what that commendation means. Tolerance among the Virtues offers invaluable insights into how to live amid differences we cannot endorse -- beliefs we consider false, actions we think are unjust, institutional arrangements we consider cruel or corrupt, and persons who embody what we oppose. (shrink)
In this book, René González de la Vega argues that tolerance under the structure of modern deontological liberalism becomes a "suicidal ideal" or an irrational attitude, mainly because its claims are contradictory to the core normative elements of this account of the liberal thought.
Avant l'âge des Lumières, on tolérait mal la religion des autres, ou alors avec réticence, comme une anomalie qu'il fallait souffrir sans l'accepter. La "tolérance des Modernes", élaborée par de grands penseurs comme Locke et Voltaire, renversait la perspective : elle mettait en place un système harmonieux de coexistence paisible entre les groupes les plus divers, tout en prônant de nouveaux droits la liberté de conscience et la liberté d'exercer sa religion dans l'espace public. Cette nouvelle conception n'allait pas de (...) soi. Elle donne à voir des éléments précurseurs en des lieux aussi divers que l'Empire ottoman et le ghetto de Venise. Après de nombreuses querelles politiques et théologiques, elle s'est enracinée en Hollande, en Angleterre, en France et dans les colonies d'Amérique. Denis Lacorne observe les manifestations les plus récentes de la tolérance dans le monde contemporain, il en analyse les usages et les limites, qu'il s'agisse des symboles religieux, de monuments, de manières de s'habiller, de ce qu'il est permis de dire et de proférer. De l'Europe au Nouveau Monde, les territoires de la tolérance n'ont cessé de s'étendre, des déistes aux athées, des baptistes aux quakers, des sikhs aux musulmans. Aujourd'hui la tolérance demeure une vertu contestée : le retour du religieux, la montée des fanatismes menacent le projet émancipateur des philosophes. Faut-il imposer des bornes à la liberté d'expression? Doit-on tolérer les ennemis de la tolérance? Pour y répondre, il nous faut redécouvrir cette grande tradition afin de mieux la défendre."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)
Der Begriff der Toleranz in der Moderne wurde erdacht mit dem Ziel, Gesellschaften zu organisieren, die sich im Umbruch befanden auf Grund des plötzlichen Eindringens von Glaubensunterschieden in die politische Raumordnung. Die Definition der Toleranz als Tugend, die auf der Nachgiebigkeit gegenüber dem Andersartigen basiert, ist ein Pseudobegriff. Die hermeneutische Veranlagung, die mit der Philosophie einhergeht, zeigt, dass die Toleranz keine schlichte moralische Tugend sein kann, sondern vielmehr eine der Beschaffenheiten der Möglichkeit rationaler Handlungen (die Arten des Seins und des (...) Sagens fallen in der Vielfältigkeit ihrer Formen zusammen). Die Geschichte der Hermeneutik zeigt seit ihren Anfängen – die exegetische Arbeit war hierbei grundlegend – die Zwickmühlen der Existenzformen der Rationalität und lässt nur ein Denken an der Grenze zu, welche ihre Grundlage ist: Es gibt keine Tatsachen, sondern Interpretationen. (shrink)
Political philosophy has seen vibrant debate over the connection, if any, between liberalism and pluralism. Some philosophers, following Isaiah Berlin, reckon a close connection between the two concepts. Others--most notably John Gray--believe that liberalism and pluralism are incompatible. In this essay, I argue that the puzzle can be solved by distinguishing the responsibilities of liberal states to their peoples from the responsibilities of liberal states to other states. There is an entailment from pluralism to liberalism, and it in turn implies (...) that while liberal states must tolerate "illiberal" lifestyles within their borders, liberal states must not tolerate illiberal states. The fact of liberal intolerance, however, does not justify unreasonably aggressive intervention by liberal states, nor does it mean that illiberal states deserve to be punished. (shrink)
In this engaging and comprehensive introduction to the topic of toleration, Andrew Jason Cohen seeks to answer fundamental questions, such as: What is toleration? What should be tolerated? Why is toleration important? Beginning with some key insights into what we mean by toleration, Cohen goes on to investigate what should be tolerated and why. We should not be free to do everythingÑmurder, rape, and theft, for clear examples, should not be tolerated. But should we be free to take drugs, hire (...) a prostitute, or kill ourselves? Should our governments outlaw such activities or tolerate them? Should they tolerate “outsourcing” of jobs or importing of goods or put embargos on other countries? Cohen examines these difficult questions, among others, and argues that we should look to principles of toleration to guide our answers. These principles tell us when limiting freedom is acceptableÑthat is, they indicate the proper limits of toleration. Cohen deftly explains the main principles on offer and indicates why one of these stands out from the rest. This wide-ranging new book on an important topic will be essential reading for students taking courses in philosophy, political science and religious studies. (shrink)
Cambridge’deki büyük akademik cemaatin sakinleri olan bizler bir araya geldik ve hoşgörü ve onun egemen politik iklim içerisindeki yeri hakkında dostça ama ateşli bir tartışma yürüttük. Okuyucu, bizim nerelerde aynı düşüncede olmadığımızı bulmakta hiçbir zorluk çekmeyecektir. Diğer taraftan, farklı başlangıç noktalarından ve farklı yollardan hareketle yaklaşık olarak aynı yere ulaştık. Her birimiz için, egemen hoşgörü kuramı ve pratiğinin, incelendiği takdirde, korkunç politik gerçekleri gizlemeye yarayan bir maske olduğu ortaya çıktı. Kızgınlığın tonu makaleden makaleye keskin bir şekilde artmakta; belki de boş (...) yere, okuyucuların bu noktaya getiren akıl yürütmeyi takip edeceklerini umuyoruz. Nihayetinde bu kızgınlık hem kafa hem de kalpte ikamet etmektedir…. (shrink)
Toleration classically denotes a relation between two agents that is characterised by three components: objection, power, and acceptance overriding the objection. Against recent claims that classical toleration is not applicable in liberal democracies and that toleration must therefore either be understood purely attitudinally or purely politically, we argue that the components of classical toleration are crucial elements of contemporary cases of minority accommodation. The concept of toleration is applicable to, and is an important element of descriptions of such cases, provided (...) that one views them as wholes, rather than as sets of isolated relations. We explain this by showing how certain cases of toleration are multi-dimensional and how the descriptive concept of toleration might be understood intersectionally. We exemplify this by drawing on case studies of mosque controversies in Germany and Denmark. Finally, we propose that intersectionality is not only relevant to the descriptive concept of toleration but also captures an important aspect of normative theories of toleration. We illustrate this by discussing ideals of respect-based toleration, which we also apply to the case studies. (shrink)
Vielleicht nie zuvor war Toleranz so wichtig wie in der heutigen Welt, in der Menschen verschiedenster Kulturregionen und Religionsgemeinschaften zusammenkommen. Der Toleranzbegriff wird nach wie vor fast ausschließlich aus der Perspektive der europäisch-westlichen Traditionen dargestellt. Mit dem vorliegenden Band wird zum ersten Mal versucht, umfassend in die Weltgeschichte der Toleranz einzuführen. Über 30 Autoren aus verschiedenen Fachgebieten und Nationen haben ihre Forschungen zu Methoden und Themen der Toleranzfrage zusammengetragen. So ist sowohl ein einführendes und weitere Forschungen anregendes Kompendium als auch (...) ein Lehrbuch für Studierende der Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften, der Philosophie, Theologie, Rechts- sowie Religionswissenschaft entstanden. (shrink)
Sometimes we should mind our own business. But at other times it would be wrong to mind one's own business. This paper explores the tension between these two claims by presenting a tendency to mind one's own business as an Aristotelian-style virtue. It is furthered argued that this is a different virtue than tolerance.
Drawing on group rights theory, author argues that a group organized around a religious motif should neither be summarily excluded from nor unduly favored in secular deliberations as to public policy and practice. To arrive at this conclusion he examines the implications of each of the following claims: (1) individuals need to operate in and through groups to influence government; (2) a political system faces moral difficulties if it is open to group-generated input; (3) worthy causes can be better advanced (...) by organized groups than by unconnected individuals; and (4) this is so whether the cause is advanced by a religious or by a non-religious group. (shrink)
Tolerance is part of the self-definition of democratic societies, one of the major foundations underlying secular democracy’s sometimes unstated and always ambivalent claim to represent a higher form of civilisation. The transformation of tolerance from a type of indulgence to a type of virtue is explained in part by what it does. It helps to preserve peace in societies with a high level of ethnic and religious diversity, and it has also played an important part in eliminating the injustices that (...) religious and racial minorities suffered when Western societies were more homogenous. Historically, intolerance has extended in extreme cases to persecution, segregation, violence and mass-murder. In more “normal” situations it has usually meant denial of civil and political rights and unequal treatment at law. A fair and decent society is obliged to address this injustice, not least by state and judicial action against groups which refuse to respect the freedom and rights of other people. Problems arise, however, when even groups which respect the freedom and rights of others, such as the Christian churches, are accused of discrimination and treated as intolerant for observing legitimate distinctions; for properly exercising a preference; and for defending the rights of others. In these cases the concept of intolerance, understood as a refusal to respect the rights of others, has been extended to encompass something which is not a form of intolerance at all; namely, the right we all have to refuse to validate choices with which we disagree. (shrink)
L'intransigeance en morale, en politique ou en religion a une longue histoire mais, de nos jours, elle trouve des accents nouveaux. En dépit de tous les clichés sur l'actuel relativisme, elle ne manque pas d'imprimer sa marque, notamment dans l'Eglise catholique. Pourquoi en est-il ainsi? Comment expliquer la mauvaise réputation de l'idée de compromis alors que toute vie humaine est une négociation permanente avec principes, normes et valeurs? Telles sont les questions agitées dans ce livre, qui touchent tout à la (...) fois aux domaines religieux, politique et culturel. Entre le relativisme total des valeurs et une intransigeance qui traduit souvent une fragilité, existe-t-il une voie possible? Plus largement, Paul Valadier se livre à une critique de l'attitude intransigeante et à un plaidoyer pour un compromis bien compris, seul capable de faire droit à ce qu'il en est de l'homme et de ses relations, tant avec la nature qu'avec les autres. (shrink)
Values -- Tolerance -- Tolerant people -- Being tolerant of family -- Being tolerant of friends -- Being tolerant of neighbours -- Ways to be tolerant -- Being aware of others -- Respecting different kinds of families -- Accepting other cultures -- Including others -- Learning from others -- Being patient -- Personal set of values.
Obgleich von vielen Moralphilosophen für obsolet erklärt, wird der moralische und politische Rekurs auf religiöse Traditionen von vielen Gläubigen keinesfalls als obsolet betrachtet. Ich untersuche, auf welchen Gründen diese Praxis basiert, und mit welchen Argumenten sie kritisiert werden kann. Es geht mir dabei ausschließlich um interne Kritik, um die Frage also, ob es aus der Perspektive der Gläubigen selbst gute Gründe gibt, darauf zu verzichten, partikulare religiöse Interessen zum Fundament allgemein verbindlicher intersubjektiver Forderungen zu machen. Hierbei sollen nicht pragmatische Gründe (...) im Vordergrund stehen, etwa das Fehlen von Machtmitteln; vielmehr soll gefragt werden, ob es Gründe gibt, einfach deshalb darauf zu verzichten, religiös fundierten Zwang auszuüben, weil es religiöse Gründe wären, die die Intoleranz motivierten. Ich versuche zu zeigen, dass Gläubige bestimmte, von Moralphilosophen vorgetragene Argumente nicht akzeptieren müssen: weder machen Gläubige semantische Fehler, wenn sie religiös motivierte Forderungen erheben, noch müssen sie den speziellen, emphatischen Vernunftbegriff anerkennen, vor dessen Hintergrund solche Forderungen irrational erscheinen. Bereitschaft zur Toleranz nicht glaubenskompatibler Praktiken kann jedoch u.a. aus einer Reflexion auf den epistemischen Status des Glaubens erwachsen. (shrink)
Toleration would seem to be the most rational response to deep conflicts. However, by examining the conditions under which trust can develop between warring parties, it becomes clear that a fundamental shift in values - a conversion - is required before toleration makes sense. This book argues that maintaining trust is the key to stable practices of toleration.
I suggest that civility is the display of respect, tolerance, or considerateness. Social norms enable us to successfully display these basic moral attitudes, and social consensus sets the bounds of civility, i.e., what views and behaviors are not owed a civil response. Because tied to social norms, there is no guarantee that standards of civility will exempt us from civilly responding to what, from a socially critical moral point of view, is tolerable. I raise and addresses the question: How could (...) civility be a moral virtue if it is so thoroughly governed by social norms? (shrink)
Das Buch beschreibt einen Paradigmenwechsel des Kompromißthemas: Aus bloßen Strategien wird eine Lebensform. Gründe für diesen Wandel entwickelt der Autor sowohl in weltgeschichtlicher wie zeitgeschichtlicher Sicht. Vor dem historischen Hintergrund deutschen Schwarz-Weiß-Denkens bis 1945 werden Grundstrukturen des Kompromißhandelns entwickelt. Die Quellen dafür reichen teilweise hinter das erste Auftreten des homo sapiens zurück: als elementare Erfahrungen von Reziprozität und Kooperation, sozialem Vertrauen und einem in gemeinsamer Herkunft und Zukunft gründenden Zeitbewußtsein. Das Buch stellt unterschiedliche Kompromißkulturen der Menschheitsgeschichte vor, unter jeweils neuen (...) Bedingungen, Chancen und Einschränkungen. Für die Gegenwart nimmt Greiffenhagen einen Paradigmenwechsel des Kompromißthemas an: Aus einem Arsenal von Klugheitsregeln allseitigen Nachgebens entwickelt sich ein Stil kooperativen Verhaltens. An Beispielen neuer Kompromißformen beschreibt der Autor diesen Wandel. (shrink)
Machine generated contents note: 1. -- War on war, by Lewis Thomas -- 2. -- Silent genocide, by Abdus Salam -- 3. -- Error: a stage of knowledge, by Paulo Freire -- 4. -- Doing without a revolution?, by Tahar Ben Jelloun -- 5. -- Stop torture, by Manfred Nowak -- 6. -- Truth, force and law, by Rabindranath Tagore -- 7. -- Violence is an insult to the human being, by Federico Mayor -- 8. -- Totalitarianism banishes politics, by (...) Vaclav Havel -- 9. -- No one will stop us. , by Desmond Tutu -- 10. -- Colonialism and the youth bomb, by Joseph Ki-Zerbo -- 11. -- The shedding of blood -- 12. -- Letter from Nagasaki, by Takashi Nagai -- 13. -- Down with exclusion!, by Herbert de Souza -- 14. -- The nower to sav 'no'. bv loan Martin-Brown -- 15. -- Inquiry into a taboo, by Ouassila Si Saber -- 16. -- The illusions of rationalism, by Ernesto Sabato -- 17. -- The 'poisonous weed', by Ba Jin -- 18. -- Humanity, an ongoing creation, by Ali Ahmad Said Esber (Adonis) -- 19. -- Image, writing and the vandal, by Alberto Moravia -- 20. -- The charms of calumny, by Andres Bello -- 21. -- On the threshold of eternity, by the Abbe Pierre -- 22. -- The control of force, by Karl Jaspers -- 23. -- The nature of force, by Simone Weil -- 24. -- The debt of justice, by Martin Luther King -- 25. -- Democracy and barbarism, by Sergei S. Averintsev -- 26. -- If all the animals should disappear, by Richard Fitter -- 27. -- Irony and compassion, by Octavio Paz -- 28. -- Against all hatred, by Aime Cesaire -- 29. -- Creating differences, by Daniel J. Boorstin -- 30. -- I dislike the word 'tolerance', by Mahatma Gandhi. (shrink)