Tolerance creates many avenues for debate. What does it actually mean to society, how does it affect our freedom, and does it have true liberal value? In this essay, I will explore and address these questions focusing on the utilitarian view that the consequences of intolerance provide good enough reason to be tolerant, as well as exploring a non-utilitarian view focussing on why tolerance is the right attitude to adopt, rather than the good attitude, which ought to be had. Once the various interpretations of tolerance have been investigated, I will demonstrate my understanding of tolerance and intolerance by considering the advantages and disadvantages they present in our world. After contrasting examples of tolerance with intolerance in society, I will prove why intolerance is less desirable from a utilitarian and non-utilitarian perspective. This will then be followed by an evaluation of society’s argument against intolerance. By using current modern day examples and putting them to the test, I aim to demonstrate whether the arguments against tolerance hold rigour in today’s 21st Century society.
With numerous opinions as to what tolerance really means, in addition to various interpretations of its level of importance in society, the term ‘tolerance’ is quite arduous to define. Many philosophers, such as J.S. Mill[1], Immanuel Kant[2] and Thomas Scanlon[3], have explored different characteristics of tolerance and interpret them inversely. As a utilitarian[4], Mill would agree with the statement ‘the only good argument for tolerance is that intolerance has very bad consequences’. The bad consequences of intolerance would be enough for Mill to accept this argument for tolerance in society. However, Mill, much like the views of Kant[5] and Scanlon[6], does not think that the bad consequences of intolerance are the only good argument for tolerance. Mill views tolerance as a ‘rule of conduct’[7] that has to be adopted by all members who wish to live in a peaceful society, he sees tolerance or ‘the line of conduct’[8] as a form of protection guaranteeing peaceful coexistence among one another.[9] The issue that arises here though is how do we go about setting the bar for the level of toleration acceptance? How can tolerance be monitored or regulated without too much censoring and restriction of people’s freedom and thus, not obstructing our liberal rights in society?