User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default The difference between Freedom and Tolerance?

    Since it seems to come up so often, I would love to hear precisely what the difference is.

    Defintions

    Freedom: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

    Tolerance: permissiveness; a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior; willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others; allowance; a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits
    To me it sounds like tolerance is permissible freedom. It is freedom within certain limits. It is done so as to "willingly recognize and respect the beliefs and practices of others" even if they may be different than yours. Since it is permissible, it is the acceptance of a thought, action, or behavior in accordance with some rule or standard.

    By contrast, intolerance would be an unwillingness to recognize or respect the beliefs and practices of others, and thus there would be no acceptance of an alternative thought, action, or behavior.

    Once intolerance seeks to impose restraints on others, it is inherently in conflict with freedom. Whereas tolerance is an action where one protects their own freedom by outlining a rule or standard that must not be violated, intolerance is only an imposition on the freedom of others.

    Therefore, I argue for one's actions not to be deciphered as "intolerant" of others they must clearly demonstrate how another's actions, thoughts, or behaviors violate a rule or standard they have established to protect their own freedom.

    Thoughts?
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #2
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Since it seems to come up so often, I would love to hear precisely what the difference is.



    To me it sounds like tolerance is permissible freedom. It is freedom within certain limits. It is done so as to "willingly recognize and respect the beliefs and practices of others" even if they may be different than yours. Since it is permissible, it is the acceptance of a thought, action, or behavior in accordance with some rule or standard.

    By contrast, intolerance would be an unwillingness to recognize or respect the beliefs and practices of others, and thus there would be no acceptance of an alternative thought, action, or behavior.

    Once intolerance seeks to impose restraints on others, it is inherently in conflict with freedom. Whereas tolerance is an action where one protects their own freedom by outlining a rule or standard that must not be violated, intolerance is only an imposition on the freedom of others.

    Therefore, I argue for one's actions not to be deciphered as "intolerant" of others they must clearly demonstrate how another's actions, thoughts, or behaviors violate a rule or standard they have established to protect their own freedom.

    Thoughts?
    Freedom is a state of being for the individual. Being able to make your own decisions on love, work, values, etc. would be freedom. Tolerance is the attitude under which an individual or group views the choices of individuals and reacts to them, on a spectrum from no tolerance or intolerance to complete tolerance. Tolerance is complicated, because there are many things in society of which we cannot be tolerant (murder, theft, etc.), and other things of which we can or cannot be, depending on what we believe, as free people (gay marriage, war, etc.).
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #3
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Freedom is a state of being for the individual. Being able to make your own decisions on love, work, values, etc. would be freedom. Tolerance is the attitude under which an individual or group views the choices of individuals and reacts to them, on a spectrum from no tolerance or intolerance to complete tolerance. Tolerance is complicated, because there are many things in society of which we cannot be tolerant (murder, theft, etc.), and other things of which we can or cannot be, depending on what we believe, as free people (gay marriage, war, etc.).
    Could you provide some definitions to support your assertions. I don't want people to just create their own definition for tolerance and freedom, but to actually adhere to a particular set of definitions. The problem seems to be that many of these threads turn into petty semantics because everyone has their own definition.

    To demonstrate, I have the following issues with your personal definitions.

    Freedom of choice for the individual is liberty, not freedom in general. Freedom in general is the ability of either an individual or a group to act, speak, or think without external constraint.

    Tolerance is not an attitude, which is a "complex mental state involving beliefs and feelings and values and dispositions to act in certain ways" but is permissible freedom or freedom within certain limits. In that sense, tolerance is a choice, that comes from the attitude of a "willingness recognize and respect the beliefs and practices of others."

    Do you see how there are issues? Especially since I've seen three threads deteriorate into this argument in just this month. That is why I would like to see people adhere to a definition instead of just making up their own. Nothing bugs me more than seeing someone who is clearly intolerant justify their intolerance by arguing their own personalized definition of tolerance.

    It's arbitrary redefinition. It's no different than if I argued that INFJs by definition have purple dots all over them and so I must not be one. Just because I can make up a definition doesn't mean it is true. That is why people need to adhere to a more widely accepted definition, otherwise we are all as bad as Ayn Rand.

    Posts moved to own thread here.
    Last edited by cafe; 06-01-2008 at 12:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #4
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I accept J. Budziszewski's view of tolerance. The following is the description given for his book True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment. (It's also a plug for the book )

    "In contemporary liberal thought, "tolerance" has come to be redefined as a synonym for ethical neutrality: refusal to judge among competing views of goods and evils. The result of this extreme relativism has been a crisis in law, politics, education, and other areas of social life. In this lucidly written and brilliantly argued volume, J. Budziszewski attempts to reverse the self-destruction of modern liberalism by showing that true tolerance is not only consistent with taking stands about objective goods and evils, but actually requires doing so.

    Falsely understood as ethical neutrality, tolerance has the paradoxical effect of crippling policy choice by divesting it of the moral and practical framework on which it depends. By painstakingly and exhaustively dissecting each of the many neutralist arguments, Budziszewski demonstrates that real neutrality is logically impossible. Confronted by alternative views, the neutralist at best obscures his own underlying judgments, and at worst abandons all possible defense against fanatics who oppose both true equality and true tolerance.

    True Tolerance is both a rigorous critique and a polemic undertaken in the name of a positive, twenty-first century vision of liberalism. Budziszewski outlines a view of true tolerance that assumes a relationship with an older liberal tradition and a codependence with other virtues, including humility, mercy, charity, respect, and courtesy. This vision is rooted in historical experience and rational conviction about what is good. In the spirit of liberal and classical theorists of virtue from Aristotle to John Locke to Alasdair MacIntyre, the virtue of true tolerance is much more than a readiness to follow known rules; it includes a developed ability to distinguish good rules from bad, and to choose rightly even where there are no rules or where rules seem to contradict each other. Accessibly written and intended for a wide readership, True Tolerance will be of special interest to political theorists and activists, and to sociologists and philosophers."

  5. #5
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    I dunno if I want to take advice on tolerance from an Evangelical turned Catholic. I agree with much of the reasoning stated, but I somehow doubt his far right liberal thinking isn't biased by his own religious perceptions as seems to be hinted by "virtues". And a statement like "to choose rightly even where there are no rules or where rules seem to contradict each other" seems like such a blatant referral to scripture. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a how to book for providing rational for religious intolerance. Also, considering that what we consider "good" changes so readily across cultures and time, my Fe driven relativistic side wants to reject him outright.

    However, I do like the idea that we need to critique our own personal values, and our conception of what is good so our judgement doesn't end up obscured by the arguments of those whose values are opposed to our own.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #6
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I dunno if I want to take advice on tolerance from an Evangelical turned Catholic. I agree with much of the reasoning stated, but I somehow doubt his far right liberal thinking isn't biased by his own religious perceptions as seems to be hinted by "virtues". And a statement like "to choose rightly even where there are no rules or where rules seem to contradict each other" seems like such a blatant referral to scripture. I could be wrong, but this sounds like a how to book for providing rational for religious intolerance. Also, considering that what we consider "good" changes so readily across cultures and time, my Fe driven relativistic side wants to reject him outright.
    You know of J Bud?

    He is biased, but his beliefs about tolerance are compatible with religions that aren't his own. Insight is not personal; it is rational: it is not who is to say; it is what is to say.

    Making choices when there are no (known) rules or when the rules seem to contradict one another is a serious problem for all ethical theories. Because Budziszewski is a natural lawyer, I highly doubt he thinks scripture (i.e., special revelation) provides answers that can't be found outside of scripture (i.e., in general revelation) to ethical problems.

    If what is considered to be good changes across cultures and time, it could mean that it is hard to know what is good, but it could also mean that persons across cultures and time don't seek to know what is good. If something is clearly good, and someone fails to know it, don't let the sympathy generated by your Fe excuse his failure to seek; if you do, you degrade him by treating him as less than human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    However, I do like the idea that we need to critique our own personal values, and our conception of what is good so our judgement doesn't end up obscured by the arguments of those whose values are opposed to our own.
    Good. The first application of philosophy is self-examination, and responding to challenges is the primary way we grow in understanding.

  7. #7
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Since it seems to come up so often, I would love to hear precisely what the difference is.



    To me it sounds like tolerance is permissible freedom. It is freedom within certain limits. It is done so as to "willingly recognize and respect the beliefs and practices of others" even if they may be different than yours. Since it is permissible, it is the acceptance of a thought, action, or behavior in accordance with some rule or standard.

    By contrast, intolerance would be an unwillingness to recognize or respect the beliefs and practices of others, and thus there would be no acceptance of an alternative thought, action, or behavior.

    Once intolerance seeks to impose restraints on others, it is inherently in conflict with freedom. Whereas tolerance is an action where one protects their own freedom by outlining a rule or standard that must not be violated, intolerance is only an imposition on the freedom of others.

    Therefore, I argue for one's actions not to be deciphered as "intolerant" of others they must clearly demonstrate how another's actions, thoughts, or behaviors violate a rule or standard they have established to protect their own freedom.

    Thoughts?
    It doesn't sound like you're clarifying the difference so much as desperately trying to invent a connection.



    Since it seems to come up so often, I would love to hear precisely what the difference is between hats and head boils...
    hat: a covering for the head, having a hollow open inner core
    head boil: a painful, circumscribed inflammation of the skin on the head, having a dead, suppurating inner core
    To me it sounds like hats are permissible head boils.
    I don't wanna!

  8. #8
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    It doesn't sound like you're clarifying the difference so much as desperately trying to invent a connection.

    Since it seems to come up so often, I would love to hear precisely what the difference is between hats and head boils...
    To me it sounds like hats are permissible head boils.
    Except within the third party definitions I used, the words "permissible" and "freedom" were included within the definitions of tolerance. Whereas I didn't see the words "permissible" or "head boils" included anywhere in the defintion you provided for hats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #9
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    ...If what is considered to be good changes across cultures and time, it could mean that it is hard to know what is good, but it could also mean that persons across cultures and time don't seek to know what is good. If something is clearly good, and someone fails to know it, don't let the sympathy generated by your Fe excuse his failure to seek; if you do, you degrade him by treating him as less than human...
    This is a perfect answer to the question of the search higher truth accross human cultures, in my opinion.

Similar Threads

  1. What's the difference between ESTP and ESFP
    By curiouscat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-04-2008, 01:17 AM
  2. What's the difference between meritocracy and technocracy?
    By Ezra in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 07:21 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 08:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO