Tolerance

Tolerance is often said to be a virtue. I wonder whether that is true. It doesn't seem like there's much tolerance these days, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing. But in order to get an idea of how much tolerance even exists or whether or not it is a virtue, as always, I need to tackle the tricky job of defining an abstract concept.

The online version of the Oxford Dictionary defines "tolerate" as, "Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference." I would say that agrees with my ideas of what tolerance means. But it does raise another question. The word "interference" in that definition is open to interpretation. There is a spectrum of activity - from physically trying to put a stop to something to simply voicing a negative opinion of that thing - along which there is a point at which we could separate interfering activities from non-interfering activities.

One could argue that even voicing a negative opinion counts as interference. Our words often have effects beyond mere communication. If my words sway public opinion, it could have an effect on which representatives people vote for and how those representatives will vote on an issue in the future. Yet voicing our opinions is good and necessary for any form of democratic government. The concept of tolerance in a democracy would be meaningless if we took such a narrow view of interference.

Of course, disagreeing with a particular practice does not necessarily mean a person wants that practice to be subject to political or government interference. So I would argue that tolerant behavior exists in that narrow area between voicing disagreement and advocating for government intervention. The freedoms of speech and religion require us to be tolerant in just this way. In the United States, we are legally required to tolerate those whose opinions differ from our own and those who practice different religions from our own.

And in theory, if you believe in liberty, you should tolerate any actions or behaviors that do not interfere with someone else's liberty. I believe tolerance and liberty are directly correlated. A more tolerant society is a more liberal society. However, as I've written before, it can also be argued that, given the social nature of our species, most of what we do affects those around us. And if we believe a certain behavior is harmful, why would we tolerate it?

Again, this is a question of balance, nuance, and gray areas. We need to balance the harm done by the behavior against the potential harm that will be done by our interference. We tolerate the expression of harmful ideas because repressing speech leads to graver dangers down the road. And if we believe something is harmful, and someone else does not or they believe the cure is worse than the disease, there may not be an objective way to arbitrate the dispute.

So the answer of the question of whether tolerance is a virtue depends, as just about everything does, on the circumstances. We may tolerate something because there is no way to prevent it without doing even more harm, or we may not be completely sure that it's harmful in the first place. But we also have the right, maybe even the duty, to be intolerant of practices and behaviors that we are sure are more harmful than their alternatives. Yet, even then, we can rarely agree on what we are sure of.