July 25th, 2024

Tolerance is not a moral precept (2017)

Yonatan Zunger's essay argues that tolerance is a social norm requiring mutual respect, not a moral absolute. It emphasizes balancing rights and enforcing tolerance to maintain societal peace and stability.

Read original articleLink Icon
Tolerance is not a moral precept (2017)

The essay by Yonatan Zunger argues that tolerance should not be viewed as a moral absolute but rather as a social norm akin to a peace treaty. Tolerance allows diverse individuals to coexist peacefully, but it is contingent upon mutual respect and the willingness to abide by its terms. Zunger highlights that accepting harmful behaviors or ideologies, such as intolerance or antisocial actions, undermines the very purpose of tolerance. He emphasizes that rights are not absolute and can conflict, necessitating a balance that resembles a treaty rather than a moral command.

When breaches occur, the response should not mirror the original aggression but aim to restore peace. Zunger uses historical examples, such as the religious wars in Europe, to illustrate that fundamental incompatibilities can lead to conflict, and that peace treaties, like the Peace of Westphalia, can provide frameworks for coexistence despite differences. He concludes that while tolerance is essential for societal stability, it must be enforced against those who threaten it, as failing to do so could lead to the collapse of the social order. Ultimately, the essay advocates for a pragmatic understanding of tolerance that prioritizes self-protection and the maintenance of peace over blind acceptance of all behaviors.

Link Icon 4 comments
By @hyperadvanced - 4 months
Kind of a solved topic. Response here is not meaningfully different than Popper’s treatment close to 80 years ago.
By @drewcoo - 4 months
Fails to prove that moral absolutes do or do not exist. Tries to build on their existence. WTF? QE absolutely not D.
By @rasmus-kirk - 4 months
What is the point here? Sure, tolerance is a peace treaty and certainly not everything should be tolerated. But what does the author argue is a violation? They say "nazis", but who defines what that is? That's vague and ripe for abuse.