Tolerance is tricky

Regarding David Talcott’s April 3 Op-Ed piece, “The Limits of Tolerance,” I agree that the value of tolerance should not be taken for granted, but I do think that, when properly understood, it is a valuable and indeed indispensable attitude to adopt. I also think its value is greatly misunderstood. There are a couple of features of tolerance that I want to clarify. First: To be tolerant of something is not necessarily to approve of it. In fact, tolerance is generally a live issue only between parties who disapprove of each others’ beliefs or values. So, one might ask, why tolerate something of which you disapprove? Here is one important reason, though there are others as well: One’s ability to express one’s own beliefs and values – and to live one’s own life – is a valuable thing in itself. The appropriate way to respect that value is to refrain from interfering with it, even if one perceives some disvalue inherent in the life being lived. This is one reason, for example, why people who disapprove of homosexuality nonetheless ought to tolerate homosexuals’ freedom and endorse their equal consideration under the law. (It is another question, of course, whether homosexuality is worthy of disapproval. For the record, I believe that there ain’t nothin’ wrong with it. Two men in love with each other, or two women in love with each other, is morally no different from a man and woman in love with each other.) Second: Tolerance, because it usually involves the valuing of a person’s autonomy, does not generally extend to the expression of values that impair another person’s autonomy. So, stealing cookies is a somewhat misleading analogy to draw. I grant, though, that female genital mutilation is often cited in discussions of tolerance. I agree with Talcott that tolerance of this practice is grossly misguided.