Toleration

Toleration is the act of permitting an action, idea, object, or person that one dislikes or disagrees with. It is often described as a set of social or political practices. This is different from tolerance, which refers to a set of personal attitudes.

Both concepts involve the idea of alterity, which is the state of being different or "other." Because it involves accepting things that some believe should be overcome, some call it a flawed virtue. Therefore, the way we use toleration is often a subject of intense debate.

Toleration typically arises during a conflict over something deeply important. These conflicts often involve questions about the best way to live or the true path to salvation. Such disagreements are endemic, meaning they are a natural part of society. Often, these issues cannot be resolved through normal negotiation or bargaining. Without a way to reach an agreement, parties might resort to war or violence. In these circumstances, toleration becomes a necessary way for diverse communities to persist in peace.

The history of the word shows how its meaning has shifted. It comes from the Latin word "tolerare," which means to bear or endure. In the 1510s, the English used it to mean permission granted by an authority. By the 1580s, the meaning moved toward forbearance or suffering through something.

Significant historical moments include the Toleration Act of 1688 and the French Revolution. In 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen stated that no one should be interfered with for their opinions, including religious ones, as long as they do not disturb public order.

Many influential thinkers have shaped our modern understanding of this concept. In 1859, John Stuart Mill argued in "On Liberty" that opinions should never be suppressed. He believed that even false beliefs could benefit the common good.

In 1882, Ernest Renan proposed that a nation is a "spiritual principle" based on shared memories. This meant that people of many different religions, such as Catholics or Jews, could all belong to the same nation. These ideas helped move the focus from shared religion to shared civic identity.

In the 20th century, toleration became a formal part of international law. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 of this document protects the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes the right to manifest one's belief through teaching, worship, and practice.

While not legally binding on its own, this declaration has influenced many national constitutions and international treaties worldwide.

Modern debates often focus on where toleration should end. Some scholars note that toleration can conflict with moral standards or national laws. For example, the British tolerated the Hindu practice of suttee in India until 1829, while the United States declined to tolerate Mormon polygamy. There are also debates regarding the French secular ideal and religious headscarves. Additionally, the treatment of the Romani people in Europe remains a continuing issue of intolerance. These examples show that applying toleration is rarely simple.

Philosophers also struggle with the "paradox of tolerating the intolerant." This asks if a tolerant society should permit groups that are themselves intolerant. John Rawls suggested that an intolerant sect should be tolerated unless it directly threatens the security of others. He believed that, over time, these groups might learn to be tolerant themselves. Other thinkers, like Herbert Marcuse, argued that "pure tolerance" could actually help tyrants. This complexity shows that toleration is a deeply contested and vital part of human rights and political systems.