The purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things included under a concept from all other things. The goal is to draw a bright line between the units to be included and those to be excluded, so that when we use a concept or word, whether in thought or communication, we know what we are thinking or talking about. A close look at today’s dictionary definitions of tolerance shows that they do not draw a bright line; rather, they blur crucial distinctions. This is to some extent evident in the Wikipedia description Mr. Gillis provides. What would it mean to be moderately respectful of practices such as, say, teaching children that Jews are dogs and pigs or that reason is the devil’s whore or that man is a blight on nature? There are people and groups who teach such evil. Should we be moderately respectful of them or their practices? How would that differ from withholding moral judgment? Of course we should not be moderately respectful of such vermin; rather, we should be intensely hateful of them. We should judge them as the children-abusing, soul-destroying, life-negating, utterly evil creatures they are. Yet the alleged virtue of tolerance tells us not to do so. Observe that other dictionary definitions of tolerance include sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own (Webster’s), and the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (American Heritage). What would it mean to have sympathy or indulgence [!] for the belief that Sharia law should reign or that women should be beaten to a pulp for not covering their bodies from head to toe in a burqa? And how would respecting such beliefs or practices be significantly different from refusing to judge them? —Craig Biddle
Posted on: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:20:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015