Tolerance

[viscousmemories]

Carrying on a discussion that came up in another thread...

I've wondered about that myself. I think the best answer is that tolerance is not an absolute value. It's religious/ethnic/etc. intolerance that's wrong, not intolerance itself. For example surely there's nothing wrong with being intolerant of rape, murder, etc.
I'm not sure I get what you mean here, both in general, and in your example. In your example, do you mean that theres nothing wrong with being intolerant towards those who commit the crime, the crime itself, or the intent behind the crime?

To illustrate the difference, take the case of three heterosexual couples, one living in the 19th century, one in the 20th century, and the last in the 21st century. In all three cases, the husband wants to have sex with his wife, in all three cases, the wife does not want to.

The 19th century man does the deed anyway, and does not commit a crime.
The 20th century man does the deed anyway, and does commit a crime.
The 21st century man doesn't do the deed, but is literally a hairs breadth away from doing so.

Which one(s) should we be intolerant towards?
I just meant that since (imo) morality and laws are subjective/intersubjective, once we (the members of a given society) have come to some basic agreement on the morality/legality of, for example, rape, then we no longer have any moral or legal obligation to tolerate it.
I'll add that I don't think your analogy is analogous, really, because as I said I think tolerance is relative to current social mores and laws. So while we may have tolerated spousal rape at one point in time doesn't really speak to whether we should tolerate it today, imo.

[Sweetie]

Can I join? I'm bored.

Assertions, vm:

Tolerance is not an absolute value.

Ethnic intolerance is wrong.

Intolerance of crimes is ok.


Question, copiae:

Is intolerance of those who commit a crime wrong?
The crime itself?
or the intent of person who commits the crime?


Clarification, vm:

Tolerance is determined and should be determined by social moral norms.

Morality is relative, therefore tolerance is relative, therefore morality is relative, therefore tolerance is relative.



These ideas need some goal I think, a specific question in order to go anywhere. I can't think of what that question is or should be though right now. :chin:

[viscousmemories]

Part of the problem, I think, is that I've conflated tolerance of beliefs with tolerance of behaviors with tolerance of physical differences. Maybe someone else can salvage some meaning from my words, I can't seem to. :P

[Goliath]

Yes, one problem is that a distinction must be made between tolerating a person's belief (or position or opinion) and tolerating said person.

[copiae]

These ideas need some goal I think, a specific question in order to go anywhere. I can't think of what that question is or should be though right now.


Perhaps the question can be how we can resolve the incongruity of being intolerant towards those who are intolerant? vm put forward the suggestion that a possible way of doing so would be to view tolerance as not being absolute. I'm currently exploring that perspective (great summary style, btw).



I just meant that since (imo) morality and laws are subjective/intersubjective, once we (the members of a given society) have come to some basic agreement on the morality/legality of, for example, rape, then we no longer have any moral or legal obligation to tolerate it.


So what you are saying is that tolerance is a function of morality* and legality (and so, I'm guessing, one can be intolerant towards wrong things and illegal acts)? What if the morality and the legality of an action do not align - e.g. the elimination of police anti-brutality laws by the government, or giving the police new, drastically invasive powers for the purpose of preventing crime? In situations like this, what is tolerance dictated by?

What if new understanding shed a different light on a situation? Hypothetically speaking, if frontal lobe damage was shown to be directly responsible for a vast majority of violent spontaneous crimes, would these crimes (or to be precise, those who commit these crimes) be viewed in such a negative light still?

There are a few more areas that can be looked at with greater detail,but I don't want to swamp you, especially not without giving you the opportunity to develop and articulate your perspective further.


I'll add that I don't think your analogy is analogous, really, because as I said I think tolerance is relative to current social mores and laws. So while we may have tolerated spousal rape at one point in time doesn't really speak to whether we should tolerate it today, imo.

The purpose of the question was not to question whether spousal morality should be tolerated, but rather to question what it was about spousal morality (and any crime) that should not be tolerated.

Based upon your answer, I gather that it is because it is a crime by modern standards. Slavery is illegal and abhorrent to most by modern standards. Should we therefore be intolerant towards those who choose to be slaves in sado-maschocistic scenarios, even if a scenario were to encompass the rest of the slaves life?


* I'm using the generic pain-avoidance definition for the time being.

[viscousmemories]

So what you are saying is that tolerance is a function of morality* and legality (and so, I'm guessing, one can be intolerant towards wrong things and illegal acts)?

What if the morality and the legality of an action do not align - e.g. the elimination of police anti-brutality laws by the government, or giving the police new, drastically invasive powers for the purpose of preventing crime? In situations like this, what is tolerance dictated by?

What if new understanding shed a different light on a situation? Hypothetically speaking, if frontal lobe damage was shown to be directly responsible for a vast majority of violent spontaneous crimes, would these crimes (or to be precise, those who commit these crimes) be viewed in such a negative light still?

There are a few more areas that can be looked at with greater detail,but I don't want to swamp you, especially not without giving you the opportunity to develop and articulate your perspective further.
I'm already swamped. :P

Maybe we should go back to your original statement:

Also, isnt there a certain degree of irony in not tolerating intolerance (which is the effect of creating more guards designed to prevent racism)? This question always pops up in my mind when reading about such things, and I for one cannot resolve it.
What is ironic about holding a belief that we should not tolerate racial intolerance?

[copiae]

I'm already swamped. :P

Maybe we should go back to your original statement:

Also, isnt there a certain degree of irony in not tolerating intolerance (which is the effect of creating more guards designed to prevent racism)? This question always pops up in my mind when reading about such things, and I for one cannot resolve it.
What is ironic about holding a belief that we should not tolerate racial intolerance?
The irony lies within the approach of being intolerant towards intolerance:
We are espousing the very thing that we decry, namely intolerance towards a particular group of people.

[viscousmemories]

What is ironic about holding a belief that we should not tolerate racial intolerance?
The irony lies within the approach of being intolerant towards intolerance:
We are espousing the very thing that we decry, namely intolerance towards a particular group of people.
But this only makes sense if we believe that intolerance of a particular group of people is in itself wrong, without any qualifiers. I don't believe that. For example, I believe in tolerance for the group 'homosexuals', and in intolerance for the group 'rapists'. Homosexuals, imo, should have all the same freedoms as anyone else. Rapists, imo, should be imprisoned. Do you see any contradiction in that view?

[copiae]

Before I answer that question, may I ask how you define tolerance?

Personally, I define tolerance as possessing a benign state of mind: I see no contradiction, for instance, between arresting a rapist and being tolerant towards them.

[viscousmemories]

Hmm... just off the top of my head I think I would define tolerance thusly:

Article 1 - Meaning of tolerance

1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.

:D

Okay, so I stole that from UNESCO (http://www.unesco.org/tolerance/declaeng.htm), but it's a far better definition than I could make up.

[Brimshack]

That's a rather idealized vision of tolerance. It presents a wonderful ethic, but I think it misses the range of meanings to which the word is put in everyday life.

Examples of "Tolerance" that bother me:

When I was in high school, too straught to take an aspirin and running with Stoners, I recall a couple converstions in which my half-baked friends made a point to discuss how they were perfectly fine with the fact that I was straight, and just how tolerant they were about it. I wasn't inclined to argue with them at the time, but I kept wondering just what in the Hell I had done that needed tolerating!?!

Ialso recall a conversation with my brother in law in which his racism became an issue, and he made a point of saying that he could be quite tolerabt of black people. ...Same question occurede to me then.

And the punch-line comes in with Homosexulaty. I get tired of hearing people say they are tolerant and loving of homosexuals when in fact Homosexuals have done nothing that needs tolerating.

Too often the word seems to imply some kind of inappopriateness on the part of the person being tolerated. It also has the logic of personal largess, that is people are tolerant out of the largeness of their hearts, when they feel like being especially decent. I think it's good to encourage that but foolish to rely upon it. And a serious tactical error to appeal to it when someone else's rights and welfare are at stake. You just can't rely on tolerance when it counts. Precisely why many of the issues where liberals typically appeal to tolerance would be better approached as issues of right and wrong. We actually have to win those battles, not merely appeal for mercy.

[viscousmemories]

I would call those misuses of the word "tolerance". :)

I wholeheartedly agree that we can't rely on tolerance when people's civil rights are at stake. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at with the thread that spawned this one, now called Civil Rights Laws (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2132). I'm glad for the Civil Rights Act and Hate Crimes legislation we have here in the states, and I'm curious what other countries have similar protections and what those are. None of the non-Americans here have answered that question for me.

[copiae]

Hmm... just off the top of my head I think I would define tolerance thusly:

Article 1 - Meaning of tolerance

1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace.


The UNESCO definition of tolerance seems to put a lot more weight in the term than I do. Funnily enough, if one were to look at this using the examples of a criminal culture or a racist culture...


1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.


And what if one were to reject the dogmatism and absolutism of tolerance? :)


1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others.


The last line is of particular interest here. If there is an attempt to force an intolerant individual to become tolerant (e.g. via law or via the tyranny of the majority), is it not a fundamental violation of this definition? Of course, 'one' can be taken to mean just an individual or a group, and not a country, but nonetheless, the entire passage, when viewed within the context of what we've been discussing, seems somewhat contradictory to me.


Unless my thoughts are glaringly misguided, I don't think theres any need for you to defend the UNESCO definitions. I'm starting to think that this is just like the liar paradox, or the paradox of the heap, inasmuch that it doesnt really have any satisfactory answer.

[viscousmemories]

The UNESCO definition of tolerance seems to put a lot more weight in the term than I do.
Well not surprisingly the dictionary lists multiple somewhat dissimilar definitions, some of which are only partially applicable to this discussion. For example, one definition of tolerance is "The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others". That's all well and good if we're only discussing tolerance of people with ideological differences, but it doesn't really apply to a discussion of tolerance with respect to people of a different ethnicity or gender. So I think when we're talking about tolerance from the perspective of equal rights, the UNESCO definition is the most comprehensive and relevant one I've come across.

Funnily enough, if one were to look at this using the examples of a criminal culture or a racist culture...


1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.


And what if one were to reject the dogmatism and absolutism of tolerance? :)
While still affirming the standards set out in international human rights instruments? I don't see how that would be possible.

The last line is of particular interest here. If there is an attempt to force an intolerant individual to become tolerant (e.g. via law or via the tyranny of the majority), is it not a fundamental violation of this definition? Of course, 'one' can be taken to mean just an individual or a group, and not a country, but nonetheless, the entire passage, when viewed within the context of what we've been discussing, seems somewhat contradictory to me.
Section 1.2 said "Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States", so that probably is what they meant by 'one'.

Unless my thoughts are glaringly misguided, I don't think theres any need for you to defend the UNESCO definitions. I'm starting to think that this is just like the liar paradox, or the paradox of the heap, inasmuch that it doesnt really have any satisfactory answer.
IMO a paradox would be if we said, "we should tolerate all views equally, except intolerance". But tolerance (in the view of the ACLU, the UN, and other organizations that are devoted to furthering civil rights) doesn't mean tolerating all views equally. So I'm just not seeing a paradox here. Is it perhaps because your definition of tolerance doesn't really align with any other I've read? I've never seen it defined as a benign state of mind, why do you define it as such?

[Sweetie]

Tolerance to me has always meant primarily that I can live in a world where people disagree and I can accept that. I can tolerate the fact that someone thinks I'm wrong, I can think someone is wrong and yet we can co-exist. I am free to do what I think is right, they are free to do what they think is right.

To me it's always been a little absurd that those who claim to be the most tolerant show oftentimes the least tolerance for opposing views. It's a hard thing to describe because we get mired down in the complications already raised in this thread.

They have effectively said to me prior that I am intolerant of your intolerance. The problem is, I am not necessarily intolerant, it depends on their definition. Sometimes intolerance to them means that I don't agree with them therefore I'm intolerant which is the greatest irony, I'm going to have to agree with copiae, I've seen this all very clearly before. What they define as intolerance is actually tolerance to me, the only problem is, I have to act on my opinions, I can't not act on them or I can't act at all. They have to tolerate the fact that I have to act according to what I think is right, the alternative is impossible unless the same thing is required of them, ie: if I have to act according to what I think is wrong, so do they.

I think real tolerance is born out of the understanding that we, each of us, could be wrong. Some of us could be right, some of our ideas can be more rational but there is not necessarily any guarantee that the most rational ideas are the correct ones even, but we know for a fact that each and every one of us is not right about everything. It's an attitude and an understanding I learned from my mother therefore I accept that about myself and about others. We all think we are right about some things. The only attitude to take is a tolerant one however, we are all forced to form opinions and we are all forced to act on them and in all of this we will disagree.

So tolerance to me is primarily about person to person interaction.

I think where the problem lies is that we are all forced to form opinions and act on them, we can do nothing less. There has to be a solution, ie: public policy or we effectively limit in many ways, our ability to be free to act at all, according to what we think is right. One side has to prevail when contradictory views meet or we prevent all of us from having the freedom to act at all. One says this limits their freedom, another says that limits their freedom, in both cases, one side has to prevail or all freedom is limited and you know what, I almost think that a large amount of tolerance is based on whether or not one is able to accept that fact or not. It doesn't mean you shouldn't keep fighting but to me it does mean that that's what democracy is all about. Sometimes we have to sacrifice for the sake of the greater good, the greater good being democracy in the instance I'm speaking of.

Tolerance to me is acceptance of some of these most basic and fundamental facts of life. Continue to act according to what you think is right but sometimes you'll be waylaid, because we live in a world where contradictory policies cannot hold the same sway, tolerance is accepting that that is true and recognizing one's place in all of that and accepting that too.

[copiae]

Funnily enough, if one were to look at this using the examples of a criminal culture or a racist culture...

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

And what if one were to reject the dogmatism and absolutism of tolerance? :)
While still affirming the standards set out in international human rights instruments? I don't see how that would be possible.


In indirect response, I believe that you may have slightly misinterpreted what I was trying to say. They seem to have defined tolerance in quite an absolutist and dogmatic style here, and yet state that tolerance involves the rejection of absolutism and dogmatism, making it (weakly) self-defeating. Incidentally, one can reject this definition of tolerance and yet behave in a manner that affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments; For that matter, one can reject tolerance altogether and still behave in such a way, as the standards are for actions, I believe, and not for thoughts.


The last line is of particular interest here. If there is an attempt to force an intolerant individual to become tolerant (e.g. via law or via the tyranny of the majority), is it not a fundamental violation of this definition? Of course, 'one' can be taken to mean just an individual or a group, and not a country, but nonetheless, the entire passage, when viewed within the context of what we've been discussing, seems somewhat contradictory to me.
Section 1.2 said "Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States", so that probably is what they meant by 'one'.


So then you can see this fundamental contradiction?


Unless my thoughts are glaringly misguided, I don't think theres any need for you to defend the UNESCO definitions. I'm starting to think that this is just like the liar paradox, or the paradox of the heap, inasmuch that it doesnt really have any satisfactory answer.
IMO a paradox would be if we said, "we should tolerate all views equally, except intolerance". But tolerance (in the view of the ACLU, the UN, and other organizations that are devoted to furthering civil rights) doesn't mean tolerating all views equally. So I'm just not seeing a paradox here. Is it perhaps because your definition of tolerance doesn't really align with any other I've read? I've never seen it defined as a benign state of mind, why do you define it as such?

In my eyes, this definition represents the crux of what tolerance is, and has the added advantage of simplicity.

Hrm. Perhaps its time for me to take a new approach, but I'd like to see if you do see the contradiction above first. I'm going camping from about midday onwards, so I'll reply in about 30 hours time or so.

[viscousmemories]

In indirect response, I believe that you may have slightly misinterpreted what I was trying to say. They seem to have defined tolerance in quite an absolutist and dogmatic style here, and yet state that tolerance involves the rejection of absolutism and dogmatism, making it (weakly) self-defeating.
I disagree that they have defined it in an absolutist and dogmatic style. The definition I pasted here isn't supposed to be the One True™ definition of tolerance. It's just Article 1 of a six point "Declaration of Principles on Tolerance", which is intended (as far as I can tell) to outline a set of ideals that support their committment to what they see as fundamental human rights.

Remember that I originally brought up the word in a discussion about civil rights, and when I couldn't come up with an adequate definition for the concept I had in my head, I checked the dictionary, encyclopedia, and then Google -- which led me to the UNESCO document. So I have a pretty good idea of what the word 'tolerance' itself means, now, in various contexts. And the closest I've come to finding a definition that reflects what I meant when I used the word is the UNESCO one. It's not a definitive answer to the question of "what is tolerance?", but it's a fairly accurate elaboration on the concept I had in mind when I used the word.

Incidentally, one can reject this definition of tolerance and yet behave in a manner that affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments;
Well, considering the fact that that definition is part of an international human rights instrument, I don't think you can reject it and still say you're affirming the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

For that matter, one can reject tolerance altogether and still behave in such a way, as the standards are for actions, I believe, and not for thoughts.
If we accept your definition of tolerance, perhaps. But looking at tolerance as a set of ideals that uphold a committment to every person's fundamental human rights, I don't see how it's possible.

The last line is of particular interest here. If there is an attempt to force an intolerant individual to become tolerant (e.g. via law or via the tyranny of the majority), is it not a fundamental violation of this definition? Of course, 'one' can be taken to mean just an individual or a group, and not a country, but nonetheless, the entire passage, when viewed within the context of what we've been discussing, seems somewhat contradictory to me.
Section 1.2 said "Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States", so that probably is what they meant by 'one'.
So then you can see this fundamental contradiction?
No, I don't see a contradiction there. I think you should read the entire UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (http://www.unesco.org/tolerance/declaeng.htm). Articles 2, 3 and 4 expand on their definition of tolerance given in Article 1, by providing examples of how it can be applied in the political, social and educational realm. I don't think it was their intention to imply that tolerance has the same meaning or application in every situation. Again, I think they're approaching it as a set of ideals, not as a single principle.

I've never seen it defined as a benign state of mind, why do you define it as such?
In my eyes, this definition represents the crux of what tolerance is, and has the added advantage of simplicity.
Well I'd agree that it's a fair definition of one sense of the word, but as I hope I've managed to express somewhat clearly by now I don't think it encompasses the whole range of what tolerance means to me.

Hrm. Perhaps its time for me to take a new approach, but I'd like to see if you do see the contradiction above first. I'm going camping from about midday onwards, so I'll reply in about 30 hours time or so.
I hope you had a fun trip. :)

[copiae]

I disagree that they have defined it in an absolutist and dogmatic style. The definition I pasted here isn't supposed to be the One True™ definition of tolerance. It's just Article 1 of a six point "Declaration of Principles on Tolerance", which is intended (as far as I can tell) to outline a set of ideals that support their committment to what they see as fundamental human rights.


Hrm, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. When I was reading the first article, I got the distinct impression that they were peddling tolerance as the "one true thing", and were pushing for it with quite a fervor. This impression has not really been reduced upon reading the entire thing. Take, for example, the following imperative, found in the preamble:


Adopt and solemnly proclaim this Declaration of Principles on Tolerance


Heh. Anyway, of the six articles, only the first article really attempts to define tolerance. Of the remaining five, three deal with how to implement tolerance (with an occasional reminder as to why) on various levels, one states a commitment to action, and the last one declares November 16th as the international day for tolerance.


Remember that I originally brought up the word in a discussion about civil rights, and when I couldn't come up with an adequate definition for the concept I had in my head, I checked the dictionary, encyclopedia, and then Google -- which led me to the UNESCO document. So I have a pretty good idea of what the word 'tolerance' itself means, now, in various contexts. And the closest I've come to finding a definition that reflects what I meant when I used the word is the UNESCO one. It's not a definitive answer to the question of "what is tolerance?", but it's a fairly accurate elaboration on the concept I had in mind when I used the word.


Perhaps now, with the UNESCO definition in mind, you could articulate your own internal definition of tolerance? Does it deviate in any way from the UNESCO definition?


Incidentally, one can reject this definition of tolerance and yet behave in a manner that affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments;
Well, considering the fact that that definition is part of an international human rights instrument, I don't think you can reject it and still say you're affirming the standards set out in international human rights instruments.


If one were to reject this definition of tolerance, and use my personal definition, for instance, or any other definition that is vaguely in the same ball park, they could still behave in a manner that is consistent with the standards (n.b. I'm interpreting this as standards of behaviour) set out in the many different human rights instruments.


For that matter, one can reject tolerance altogether and still behave in such a way, as the standards are for actions, I believe, and not for thoughts.
If we accept your definition of tolerance, perhaps. But looking at tolerance as a set of ideals that uphold a committment to every person's fundamental human rights, I don't see how it's possible.


Staying within the context of my original comment... There is a difference between actions, and the thoughts behind the action. For example, one can choose not to discriminate against Group X because they are commited towards upholding fundamental human rights, or because they don't want to go to jail, or because they know that people from Group X could beat the living daylights out of them.

Indeed, even the most profane racist/bigot can conform outwardly to the human rights instruments, or so it seems to me, based on my rather tenuous understanding of the contents of said instruments.




No, I don't see a contradiction there. I think you should read the entire UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (http://www.unesco.org/tolerance/declaeng.htm). Articles 2, 3 and 4 expand on their definition of tolerance given in Article 1, by providing examples of how it can be applied in the political, social and educational realm. I don't think it was their intention to imply that tolerance has the same meaning or application in every situation. Again, I think they're approaching it as a set of ideals, not as a single principle.


On the contrary, I would suggest that such equality of application would be the intent they had in mind when coming up with the definition. Tolerance is, after all, not particularly effective if Group X is only tolerated in a particular way, and Group Y is only tolerated in a different way, etc.




Anyway, I guess the irony I see in this topic occurs when we deal with those who are intolerant with intolerance. I am reminded of a comment by Nietzsche in BG&E (Quoting from memory):

"Those who hunt monsters, be careful that you do not turn into monsters yourself! For when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."



I hope you had a fun trip. :)

Yeah, it was great fun. The camp site was a bit crowded, but apart from that, theres nothing like having a cold beer next to a hot fire, whilst looking up at a night sky speckled with an myriad of glittering stars.

[viscousmemories]

I disagree that they have defined it in an absolutist and dogmatic style. The definition I pasted here isn't supposed to be the One True™ definition of tolerance. It's just Article 1 of a six point "Declaration of Principles on Tolerance", which is intended (as far as I can tell) to outline a set of ideals that support their committment to what they see as fundamental human rights.
Hrm, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. When I was reading the first article, I got the distinct impression that they were peddling tolerance as the "one true thing", and were pushing for it with quite a fervor. This impression has not really been reduced upon reading the entire thing. Take, for example, the following imperative, found in the preamble:

Adopt and solemnly proclaim this Declaration of Principles on Tolerance

I really don't see where they're "peddling tolerance as the one true thing" at all, and I don't really understand why you've phrased that as if they're selling snake oil. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would oppose an international agreement to embrace tolerance as they've defined it.

Anyway that sentence you quoted isn't an imperative, it's part of a larger document that begins with "The Member States of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, [...]" They aren't demanding that anyone else adhere to these principles, they're only stating their committment to do so.

Heh. Anyway, of the six articles, only the first article really attempts to define tolerance. Of the remaining five, three deal with how to implement tolerance (with an occasional reminder as to why) on various levels, one states a commitment to action, and the last one declares November 16th as the international day for tolerance.
Right. I don't see how this conflicts with what I said.

Perhaps now, with the UNESCO definition in mind, you could articulate your own internal definition of tolerance? Does it deviate in any way from the UNESCO definition?
I'm not sure what you're asking for here. One thing I've come to realize during the course of this discussion is that the definition of the word is highly dependent on the context, so how I define it will vary according to what we're talking about. And as I said earlier, "So I think when we're talking about tolerance from the perspective of equal rights, the UNESCO definition is the most comprehensive and relevant one I've come across.” In other words I don’t think I can add anything important to or have any fundamental disagreement with their definition.

Incidentally, one can reject this definition of tolerance and yet behave in a manner that affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments;
Well, considering the fact that that definition is part of an international human rights instrument, I don't think you can reject it and still say you're affirming the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

If one were to reject this definition of tolerance, and use my personal definition, for instance, or any other definition that is vaguely in the same ball park, they could still behave in a manner that is consistent with the standards (n.b. I'm interpreting this as standards of behaviour) set out in the many different human rights instruments.
Okay, I think I see what you’re saying. Sure, I believe it’s possible to reject their definition of tolerance and still affirm the standards of behavior set out in international human rights instruments. But it still doesn’t make any sense to me that anyone would affirm the behavioral standards set out in that particular human rights instrument, if they reject principles it's based on.

Staying within the context of my original comment... There is a difference between actions, and the thoughts behind the action. For example, one can choose not to discriminate against Group X because they are commited towards upholding fundamental human rights, or because they don't want to go to jail, or because they know that people from Group X could beat the living daylights out of them.

Indeed, even the most profane racist/bigot can conform outwardly to the human rights instruments, or so it seems to me, based on my rather tenuous understanding of the contents of said instruments.
That’s why I think it’s important to note that to me, tolerance in this context is more than just a state of mind, it’s also a prescription for behavior based on a set of fundamental principles.



I don't think it was their intention to imply that tolerance has the same meaning or application in every situation. Again, I think they're approaching it as a set of ideals, not as a single principle.
On the contrary, I would suggest that such equality of application would be the intent they had in mind when coming up with the definition. Tolerance is, after all, not particularly effective if Group X is only tolerated in a particular way, and Group Y is only tolerated in a different way, etc.
I believe you’re right that they intended for the same definition of tolerance (as described in Article 1) to apply equally to everyone. But for example the first sentence of Article 2 is “Tolerance at the State level requires just and impartial legislation, law enforcement and judicial and administrative process.” I’m sure they didn’t mean for that to apply explicitly to individuals as well, because that would be nonsensical.

Anyway, I guess the irony I see in this topic occurs when we deal with those who are intolerant with intolerance. I am reminded of a comment by Nietzsche in BG&E (Quoting from memory):

"Those who hunt monsters, be careful that you do not turn into monsters yourself! For when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
Well like I said before, I agree that it would be ironic if someone were to take a stance of complete intolerance of any intolerance. But I’ve personally never interacted with anyone like that. Most of the times I’ve seen criticism of intolerance it has been about specific forms of intolerance.

Yeah, it was great fun. The camp site was a bit crowded, but apart from that, theres nothing like having a cold beer next to a hot fire, whilst looking up at a night sky speckled with an myriad of glittering stars.
Glad to hear it. :) I haven’t camped in about 15 years, but I’m not much into nature anyway.

[copiae]

I really don't see where they're "peddling tolerance as the one true thing" at all, and I don't really understand why you've phrased that as if they're selling snake oil. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would oppose an international agreement to embrace tolerance as they've defined it.


I can. (See above) :)


Anyway that sentence you quoted isn't an imperative, it's part of a larger document that begins with "The Member States of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, [...]" They aren't demanding that anyone else adhere to these principles, they're only stating their committment to do so.


Ah, I see. You are correct... I misread the bolding, capital letter and line break as indicating that it was important and a new sentence, but in reality, it seems to be a continuation of the sentence prior to the preamble.



Okay, I think I see what you’re saying. Sure, I believe it’s possible to reject their definition of tolerance and still affirm the standards of behavior set out in international human rights instruments. But it still doesn’t make any sense to me that anyone would affirm the behavioral standards set out in that particular human rights instrument, if they reject principles it's based on.


What if an individuals behaviour and the behavioural standards set out in that particular human rights instrument are only incidentally affirmational? i.e. should the particular human rights instrument change, the individuals behaviour would no longer be affirmational?



That’s why I think it’s important to note that to me, tolerance in this context is more than just a state of mind, it’s also a prescription for behavior based on a set of fundamental principles.


Any particular set of fundmental principles? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but perhaps keeping the definition this broad seems to me to be an invitation to misunderstanding.



I believe you’re right that they intended for the same definition of tolerance (as described in Article 1) to apply equally to everyone. But for example the first sentence of Article 2 is “Tolerance at the State level requires just and impartial legislation, law enforcement and judicial and administrative process.” I’m sure they didn’t mean for that to apply explicitly to individuals as well, because that would be nonsensical.


Actually, I was talking about individuals. Any reification of my example above can illustrate how that would work. Indeed, I think that any conditional tolerance is effectively the same as intolerance (which brings about its own range of problems, but thats for another post).

Anyway, I'm sidetracking. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on if you think there should be a difference in how a state handles (in)tolerance and how the people handle (in)tolerance?


Well like I said before, I agree that it would be ironic if someone were to take a stance of complete intolerance of any intolerance. But I’ve personally never interacted with anyone like that. Most of the times I’ve seen criticism of intolerance it has been about specific forms of intolerance.


So then, is there any intolerance that one should tolerate? Why? Is this a relatavistic answer? (I admit to being mystified by your comment, so feel free to ignore the questions and expound on the comment... I believe it lies at the crux of the matter).