A Comprehensive Study: Nature and Justification of Toleration Essay

This essay delves into the multifaceted nature and justification of toleration, exploring its core components of disagreement and disapproval, as defined by scholars like Verkuyten, Van Doorn, and Laegaard. It examines the complexities of tolerance, including its role in peaceful coexistence versus violent conflict, and the dilemmas intrinsic to the notion of toleration. The essay analyzes various societal conditions that promote toleration, such as market economies and democratic institutions, as outlined by Gilley. It then explores different justifications for toleration, including political, epistemological, and ethical arguments, referencing the work of Blokker, Bornschier, Floridi, and others. Furthermore, the essay discusses the concept of respect conception, the neo-Lockean and ethical-liberal justification, and the development of political toleration under the influence of John Rawls, including its pragmatic approach to achieving political unity and justice among diverse people, while also considering the potential pitfalls of such approaches. The essay concludes by highlighting the ongoing philosophical discussions surrounding toleration in modern and multicultural societies.

Running head: NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
Nature and Justification of Toleration
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
Introduction- __________
Main Body
As per Verkuyten, Yogeeswaran and Adelman (2019), there must be an aspect of
dislike, disapproval and disagreement when speaking of tolerance. He have defined the term
“toleration” as the conditional acceptance of or the non-interference with practices, actions or
beliefs, which are considered by a person to be wrong but “tolerable”. It presupposes
disagreement and opposition. If there is no prevalence of objection, then there is no tolerance,
rather sympathy and indifference. Van Doorn (2014) in this context have also opined about
this nature of tolerance. According to him, tolerance is only required when there is
disapproval, dislike and disagreement and therefore, it is very closely linked with the
differences in between people or groups of people. Laegaard (2010) in this regard has
claimed that if people do not believe that the difference is important, if they do not care about
it, it makes complete sense to say that they are indifferent to it, but not tolerant.
Furthermore, as opined by Afdal (2010), tolerance could be considered to be “flawed
virtue” as it is related to the acceptance of the differences in between people for which they
would rather fight, overcome or ignore. Notwithstanding this fact, how flawed a virtue it may
be, tolerance is something that may be the one and only thing to stand in between the
peaceful coexistence and the violent conflict of the intergroup. While there are several
scholars who have studied the political tolerance and intolerance systematically along with
the o other closely related subjects of prejudice for more than half century, there are several
empirical and conceptual puzzles that have still remained unsolved. This clearly reflect how
complex is the nature of tolerance and the dilemmas that are intrinsic to the notion of
toleration are. Mackenzie (2005) in this context have claimed that identifying an individual’s
boundary of toleration with the difference in between the objectionable and unobjectionable

2NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
practices or beliefs or actions cannot just happen at once. For tolerating something, he or she
must already find it objectionable, or else, there is nothing to tolerate. Furthermore, as per
Afdal (2010), tolerance demands compromise and it impels one to settle for less than what he
or she deserve or what he or she desire for. However, the notion opined by Berggren (2012)
in this context- it is not true that tolerance is good and intolerance is bad (by definition) -
further complicates the understanding of the nature of tolerance. By the term toleration,
Gilley (2010) refers to what Van Doorn (2014) regard the democratic rules of game. It is to
note that toleration in the societies remains a matter of degree instead of an absolute measure.
Gilley (2010) discerns the six different societal conditions, which promote the notion of
toleration and they are- a) market economy, c) social diversity, c) epistemological
uncertainty, d) democratic political institutions, e) critical mass of knowledge occupations
and f) the predominance of rational calculation over tradition. He argues that these six
societal conditions make the likelihood of toleration more predominant and at the same time,
do not trigger it.
Most of the systematic arguments for the concept of toleration- be they moral,
religious, epistemological or pragmatic, can be used as the justification for several different
conceptions of toleration (permission conception, coexistence conception, respect conception
and respect conception). Blokker and Brighenti (2011) have developed a political justification
of toleration after the thought of the different Polities whose major concern was about the
stability of state. For these Polities, preserving the political sovereignty was considered to be
prime on the basis of the preservation of the religious strife and p plurality. However, it is to
note that this does not among to the ideas of a completely secular state that have religious
liberty. On the other hand, in the study of Bornschier (2010), there was no dominant position
and no obvious losers or winners in the tradition of the religious discourse. As per the very
first conception, the relation of toleration are hierarchical and are quite unstable according to

3NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
the notion of “coexistence”. On the other hand, for the “esteem conception”, it is the most
demanding one in terms of the type of mutual appreciation in between the tolerating parties.
However, in both the cases, the limits of toleration is seen to be very narrow and arbitrary
like in the esteem conception that allows the toleration of the practices and beliefs, which can
be valued ethically.
It is also to mention that the epistemological argument on toleration can be traced
back to Socrates (Floridi 2015). Still, this ideal becomes explicit in the thinking of Mill,
Milton and Locke. As per the epistemological argument, one must tolerate the beliefs and
opinions of others as it is either coercion is not always the most advantageous pedagogical
approach or it is impossible coercing the belief. Ratzinger (2016) in this context have stated
that tolerance is all about putting up with something that one do not like in order to get along
with the others. There are many scholars who have agreed upon this description of the
concept of tolerance as according to them, it reflects what tolerance actually is and why it
needs to be practices. As per the present philosophical discussion of the notion of toleration
in the modern and multicultural societies, “respect conception” is regarded as the most
promising and the most appropriate one. Still in such discussions, the concept of toleration
can be justified in many different ways. According to the neo-Lockean and ethical-liberal
justification, respect is earned and owed to the individuals as ethically and personally
autonomous beings along with the potential of choosing, revising and realising the concept of
good of an individual (McKinnon and Castiglione 2013). This capacity is to be furthered and
respected as it is considered to be an important condition for the achievement of good life.
Therefore, this argument presupposes a particular thesis regarding good life and that is that,
only the autonomously chosen way o of life could be a good life and that be questioned
reasonably. It is doubtful that whether this way of life is more valuable than the o one that is
adopted in much more traditional manner, in absence of variety of options to select from.

4NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
Along with this, it is also to mention that the ethical individual autonomy can have a
paternalistic character and at the same time, might lack in toleration for such non-liberal way
of life. Hence, it can be stated that there is a significant danger of shortage of difference in
between the elements of rejection and objection mentioned above.
Under the influence of John Rawls in the 20th century, the notion of political toleration
was developed. His approach attempts to be neutral regarding the moral value for establishing
the political principles and nature of toleration. He argues for the concept of toleration in
pragmatic way as the one that works best for achieving the political unity and justice among
the diverse people. However, though the idea o of political toleration has been strongly
defended by John Rawls, it has also formed the basis of the other political and pragmatic
accounts of the toleration, comprising of the ones of Richard Rorty, John Dewey and Michael
Walzer. However, there is a danger with this approach as well and that is that it tends towards
the relativism by means of limiting itself from articulating a metaphysical defence of
toleration and autonomy. The problem lies in the idea that the state neutrality could become
paradoxical, which is, a neutral state where everything is neutral. On the other hand, in the
study of Mckinnon and Castiglione (2013), there was no dominant position and no obvious
losers or winners in the tradition of the religious discourse. As per the very first conception,
the relation of toleration are hierarchical and are quite unstable according to the notion of
“coexistence”.

5NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
References:
Afdal, G., 2010. The maze of tolerance. In International handbook of inter-religious
education (pp. 597-615). Springer, Dordrecht.
Berggren, N. and Elinder, M., 2012. Is tolerance good or bad for growth?. Public
Choice, 150(1-2), pp.283-308.
Blokker, P. and Brighenti, A., 2011. Politics between justification and defiance. European
Journal of Social Theory, 14(3), pp.283-300.
Bornschier, S., 2010. The new cultural divide and the two-dimensional political space in
Western Europe. West European Politics, 33(3), pp.419-444.
Floridi, L., 2015. Toleration and the design of norms. Science and engineering ethics, 21(5),
pp.1095-1123.
Gilley, B., 2010. Democratic enclaves in authoritarian regimes. Democratization, 17(3),
pp.389-415.
Heyd, D., 2008. Is toleration a political virtue?. Nomos, 48, pp.171-194.
Lægaard, S., 2010. A multicultural social ethos: tolerance, respect or civility?. In Diversity in
Europe (pp. 93-108). Routledge.
Mackenzie, I. 2005. Political concepts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McKinnon, C. and Castiglione, D. eds., 2013. The culture of toleration in diverse societies:
Reasonable tolerance. Oxford University Press.

6NATURE AND JUSTIFICATION OF TOLERATION
Ratzinger, J.C., 2016. Truth and tolerance: Christian belief and world religions. Ignatius
Press.
Van Doorn, M., 2014. The nature of tolerance and the social circumstances in which it
emerges. Current Sociology, 62(6), pp.905-927.
Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., and Adelman, L., 2019. Intergroup toleration and its
implications for culturally diverse societies. Social Issues and Policy Review, 13(1), 5-35.