The Issue of Tolerating People We Disapprove - Coursework Example

SHOULD WE TOLERATE PEOPLE WE DISAPPROVE OF IN ORDER TO SHOW THEM RESPECT, OR BECAUSE WE CANNOT BRING OURSELVES TO RESPECT THEM? By of the class Name of the professor Name of the School City, State 15 March 2015 This paper discusses the issue of whether we should tolerate people we disapprove of in order to show them respect, or because we cannot bring ourselves to respect them. Tolerance means the deliberate choice to dismiss or put up with what one dislikes or disapproves of, when one has the ability to act otherwise. Dobbernack and Modood (2011, p. 8) however note that “toleration contains an element of disapproval and objection that, though balanced out and overridden by reasons for forbearance and acceptance, may be seen to perpetuate a smear on minority groups”. In societies made up of people whose ways of life are different and any decent society, toleration is a necessary element. Examples are western cultures where the people have very different lifestyles yet they have to learn to live together. In liberal societies, individuals are required to be very committed towards toleration (McKinnon and Castiglione, 2003). This may not be very easy to do but it is more urgent than it is usually imagined. In management of conflicts, toleration possesses the necessary features. According to Sahin, (2010, p. 8) “the conflict that is the subject matter of toleration is caused by differences which are caused by diversity in turn”. Diversity leads to differences among people and differences lead to opposition or tolerance. Toleration doesn’t eradicate conflict or differences that cause the conflicts, it only prevents them from taking a destructive turn. The conflicts that cause issues remain even after toleration has been applied. Toleration doesn’t need a person to accept the object of toleration that causes dislike. Rather, all it “requires is to refrain from prohibiting, hindering or coercively interfering with the conduct of the object of toleration” (Sahin, 2010, p. 8). Toleration is tricky and it is all about comprise since there is need to develop respect for others. Mckinnon and Castiglione (2003) point out that toleration means willingness to rethinking and change whatever opinions one has, as well as having less certainty of beliefs and more openness. People have beliefs and practices that they do not like and this means being tolerant towards them rather than being disrespectful of them as they mean a lot to other people. In a liberal society, dishonesty, disloyalty and selfishness can be endured, but intolerance cannot be endured. In such a society, ways of tolerating others are implemented. In fact, why should people disapprove those that are different from them? Appreciating and embracing diversity means appreciating those who are different from us and tolerating them (Haydon, 2006). This way, the differences are not felt as much and people live in harmony. While people may be sure that they are just being tolerated by others, if asked what they would want, most of them will claim that they want and deserve not tolerance, but respect. Objects of tolerance include beliefs, practices, religion and ethics. Different people dislike different things. However, not all objects can be subjects of intolerance, and there is need to show why some dislikes are totally different and demand or deserve action. Those opposed to homosexuality don’t say they dislike it, they say it is unnatural and socially subversive. A white racist is rarely content to say that he dislikes blacks; instead, he says blacks are morally inferior and points out their habits and practices that he may not be comfortable with. This way, he shows why he disapproves of them and their presences. Disapproval involves judgment. It assumes that values and standards on which that judgment is based on. These values must be applicable to the object of tolerance as otherwise they have no relevance or validity for judgement or can’t be judged. These values and standards must be universal in their validity or at least must be accepted by the society for which the object of tolerance is a part of. According to Dobbernack and Modood (2013, p. 224), “tolerance presupposes that one is able to do something about the object of tolerance, such as prohibit, ban, persecute or put an end to it, and thus act on one’s disapproval”. Only when intolerance is only an option is tolerance possible. Self-restraint or forbearance is practiced when people choose not to practice the power they have over objects of tolerance, since people have the power to put end to or disallow these objects. It is important to note that practicing self-restraint can sometimes lead to problems as it can be assumed that someone approves something while she doesn’t. In such a case, “the agent of intolerance is anxious to make this clear partly to ward off the likely criticism of her opponents, partly to limit the expectations of the object of tolerance, and partly to let the latter know that hers is an act of magnanimity deserving the recipients gratitude and good behavior (Dobbernack and Modood, 2013, p. 224)”. This is done through continuous expression of disapproval or asking for no further demands from the object of intolerance and this puts undue strain on tolerance. Examples are respect or public recognition, which if demanded further, an end can be put to them and where it may apply, discriminatory sanctions can be attached to them. Some level of plurality of values is assumed in tolerance. The fact that tolerance involves self-restraint means that one has made a commitment or has values that prevent him from acting on his disapproval by disallowing the object of intolerance or putting an end to it. Dobbernack and Modood (2013, p. 224) assert that “one might allow a disapproved belief or practice because one respects the agent’s integrity or autonomy, holds that beliefs cannot or at least should be not coerced, thinks that physical force or law should not extend to certain areas, or because peace and civil order should not be put at risk”. In such cases, the values must be obviously different from those that the primary disapproval is based on. This is what leads to a minimum plurality of values in tolerance as there as those that establish disapproval and those that restrict its application. When the values that restrain application of disapproval are overwhelming, they override those that establish the disapproval. In such a case, self-restraint is not necessary, but if the case is the other way round, self-restraint becomes a necessity. The flow of physical force or the law shouldn’t extend to certain areas, because peace and civil order shouldn’t be put at risk. The moral logic of tolerance is complex. This is because “since one allows what one disapproves of or even considers evil, one feels a sense of moral unease, even guilt” (Dobbernack and Modood, 2013, p. 225). A sense of moral pride is however felt, since one allows what he disapproves of out of respect for a greater value. It is a fact that one has a sense of moral superiority over another when he chooses to patiently chooses to suffer for the moral offence carried by the other person’s misguided practice or belief. In the situation of tolerance, all credit is given to the tolerator. This is because “the willingness to forbear, like the willingness to forgive, is an expression of not only greater power but also superior character” (Dobbernack and Modood, 2013, p. 225). It is the things that people disapprove of that they have to tolerate. In fact, the word disapproval is an understatement since for some people, the practices they disapprove of are things that disgust them or that they hold with disdain. This makes them despise these things. However, due to the reason that they understand what these things mean to those who practice them and the level of importance that these people give to these practices, they tolerate them. They can’t ignore these practices or beliefs, for if they ignore something that is of importance to someone else, it is seen as demeaning and disrespectful. On the other hand, they can’t embrace them for this would mean that they accept them and this is not the case. For these reasons, only room for criticism is left. As they criticize the practice, belief or way of life, they voice its unacceptability and at the same time, recognize its importance. When people do nothing, it is assumed that they fail to take a practice seriously or those who engage in it. Here, active critical engagement becomes important, as it is the only way to show respect for people or a way of life that they disapprove of. It is important to note that a judgmental, conflictive and interactive society is created by this kind of respect. In such a society, two groups of people exist; those that are tolerated and those that work hard to be tolerant. From common knowledge, such a situation cannot exist without problems. This is because although those who are tolerated might not like to hear some things, they have to cope with being told about the defects of their way of life. For the tolerant, they have to cope with putting up with things they disapprove out of respect for the other group of people. So it is generally not easy either way. To show how hard it is, suppose one looks at monogamous relationships that revolve around caring and nurturing of children as the kind of human life that is fulfilling. It is the choice of the individual to constantly criticize and confront childless and single friends. But, the results of this must be considered. On the other hand, silent disapproval comes with another dilemma, which is that of silent suffering. This leads to the solution of putting up with. Tolerance is a civility with shows respect towards others and harmony without conformity. Understanding of tolerance is offered as an appropriate and practical model for calming hostile tensions between individuals and groups and helping society move past the conflicts. For stability to exist and justice to prevail, some degree of acceptability is required in the virtue of tolerance. The sense in which the tolerance might be acceptable to diverse and opposed members of the society must be defined and defended. Many theorists face this challenge with an account of how to properly exercise the public of acceptable tolerance. Many tolerant societies face challenges; there are claims that a tolerant society is only possible when the society members are tolerant. If doubts are put on a coherence of toleration as an attitude that the society ought to adopt towards one another, the possibility of getting a tolerant society is diminished. Such doubts are said to be brought up by the very formulation of the idea of toleration, which gives rise to a paradox. Is it right to be tolerant of ideas, behaviors, and practices that are believed to be wrong? Tolerance is like an impossible virtue because it appears to be appropriate when a person has a good reason to be intolerant, but shouldn’t be a good reason for not acting properly. According to McKinnon and Castiglione (2003, p. 1), “the success of ‘zero tolerance’ as a slogan for a less forgiving society bears witness to the diffusion of such a mood in public opinion”. Tolerance as a virtue among many but happens to be the one people give a lot of attention to. The most difficult aspect is that tolerance tries to require the acceptance of a conflicting belief. An example is that of an individual X, whose actions are unethical and immoral, hence this is something that individual A should oppose. Yet, individual A believes it is not okay to oppose individual X. Individual A’s tolerance seems to appear in her acceptance of belief that demands her to embark on a conflicting course of action. This problem arises at a common level, where members of two different cultural traditions coexist. Individual X is wrong or immoral by the standard levels of the culture or tradition of individual A, yet these same levels of standards may charge members of A not to be against the enhancement of X. Tolerance in this context is the key ordering device in many societies characterized by diversity. Tolerance is occasionally important to peace and stability of a society where members are moral and ethical in orientation. Tolerating a subject has the ability to dictate the willingness on the tolerated subject. This means that a person has a choice to stop a person from acting against some immoral practices. For example, if person can refrain himself from acting against a particular belief or practice, this means the person has exercised toleration. People may not be considered intolerant if they disapprove other’s beliefs for various reasons. In a society filled with injustice, inequality and corruption, many people assume that the best solution to prevent this intolerance involves a greater degree of tolerance. An increasing number of people believe that morality is relative to the person, society, religion and culture and there is no right to disapprove of people’s behaviors. Trying to snatch away their rights to have them do what is expected is wrong. Instead, they together with their decisions should be respected. Even when some people view themselves as being superior to others, they should respect their religious beliefs and practices (Thomas, 1999). Strike, Haller and Soltis (2005, p. 139) state that “what we are respecting is the right to choose, not the adequacy of the choice”. The idea behind social equality is not everyone should like or love the other, but everyone should respect the other. Respect doesn’t require people to have identical cultures, religions or lifestyles. We should respect people who act in ways we disapprove or take things we disapprove of. For example, if one disapproves alcohol consumption it doesn’t mean that he should disrespect those who take alcohol. To respect doesn’t mean to agree. Everyone has the obligation to respect the other even when they are very different. The freedom to disagree with the actions and ideas of other people is however granted to everyone. People often radically disapprove the choices of others, but respect them and debate ideas. A tolerant society is one where citizens are willing to live with the threat of moral evolution as things can always change (Scanlon, 2003).Self-control is in the heart of tolerance; people can tolerate an activity and resist the pressure to disrespect the people that they find unpleasant by practicing self-control. Tolerance is a virtue which expects personal honesty in the face of moral disagreements. That which is tolerated should have legitimate rights for others, especially when it’s the women and children. People must exercise tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their rights to advocate for their positions. However, they are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behaviors. Toleration requires us no to act on the negative consequences of our negative judgment of people. This is seen to be difficult when we find ourselves confronting people, attitudes or behaviors that we reject. If we were asked to tolerate everything that is considered intolerable, then toleration would be a pernicious idea that would undermine the process of judgment. Toleration is for a restricted range of activities since murder and genocide are not things people ought to tolerate. Where the activities and practices do not mean to us, we can only respect them and tolerate them since they mean a lot to those who practice them. Just in the same way we would want respect and tolerance from people who disapprove of some beliefs we hold dear, so should we respect and tolerate theirs. References Dobbernack, J. and Modood, T., 2011. Tolerance and Cultural Diversity in Europe: Theoretical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. [online] Available at: < http://www.eui.eu/Projects/ACCEPT/Documents/Research/wp2/ACCEPTPLURALISMWP2D2-1Stateoftheartreport.pdf> [Accessed 15 March 2015]. Dobbernack, J. and Modood, T., 2013. Tolerance, Intolerance and Respect: Hard to Accept? London: Palgrave Macmillan. Haydon, G., 2006. Values in Education. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. McKinnon, C. and Castiglione, D., 2003. The Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies: Reasonable Tolerance. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sahin, B., 2010. Toleration: The Liberal Virtue. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. Scanlon, T. M., 2003. The Difficulty of Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Strike, K. A., Haller, E. J. and Soltis, J. F., 2005. The Ethics of School Administration. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College Press. Thomas, L., 1999. Sexual Orientation and Human Rights. England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.   Read More