I think this is progress, yes. I think the distinction between tolerance and acceptance turns out to be crucial (thanks, radicalteacher).
But I'm still stuck with the problem of how much leeway basic civil tolerance must allow for others to act in ways that do not meet one's own approval. Because it seems to me that one can be tolerant, in the sense of basic politeness, without accepting that people have the right to behave in a particular way. Tolerance clearly does not require that I permit people to steal my wallet, for instance. And given this, I'm hard pressed to see where basic tolerance requires, say, Harvard to admit blacks, or Wisconsin to grant civil marriages to gay couples, or Arkansas to allow a woman to obtain an abortion. It seems that pure tolerance would allow one to deliver nearly any blow that modern liberals might label as "intolerant," as long as it is done politely and with clean gloves on...
Perhaps tolerance requires not just politeness but an acknowledgement that others have certain rights. But because these rights are not universally agreed upon, what looks like basic tolerance to a liberal (it is only polite to let me marry; it does not harm you) looks like forced acceptance to a conservative (you may do what you like in private, but you may not expect that I or my representatives in the government condone it with the symbol of societal approval that is ours to bestow). And I don't see any way out of this rhetorical muddle, actually.
In any case I become further convinced that tolerance is not really what liberals are after, for several reasons I had not thought of upon making my first post!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-12-01 09:39 am (UTC)But I'm still stuck with the problem of how much leeway basic civil tolerance must allow for others to act in ways that do not meet one's own approval. Because it seems to me that one can be tolerant, in the sense of basic politeness, without accepting that people have the right to behave in a particular way. Tolerance clearly does not require that I permit people to steal my wallet, for instance. And given this, I'm hard pressed to see where basic tolerance requires, say, Harvard to admit blacks, or Wisconsin to grant civil marriages to gay couples, or Arkansas to allow a woman to obtain an abortion. It seems that pure tolerance would allow one to deliver nearly any blow that modern liberals might label as "intolerant," as long as it is done politely and with clean gloves on...
Perhaps tolerance requires not just politeness but an acknowledgement that others have certain rights. But because these rights are not universally agreed upon, what looks like basic tolerance to a liberal (it is only polite to let me marry; it does not harm you) looks like forced acceptance to a conservative (you may do what you like in private, but you may not expect that I or my representatives in the government condone it with the symbol of societal approval that is ours to bestow). And I don't see any way out of this rhetorical muddle, actually.
In any case I become further convinced that tolerance is not really what liberals are after, for several reasons I had not thought of upon making my first post!