The heart of the problem seems to me to be that strictly enforced tolerance
is profoundly intolerant. Therefore any morality which tries to base
itself on tolerance per se -- rather than forebearance as embedded in a
larger system of Christian/Buddhist/whatever beliefs -- is doomed to
self-contradiction or paralysis. But once tolerance is embedded in a larger
set of beliefs, there is no longer any guarantee of tolerance per se. Or at
least there are limits to it. (And focussing on tolerance also begs the
question of what that larger set of beliefs might be.)
Stuart White, anybody, can help me here... Or am I just being stupid?
And, while I'm enquiring, I'd also like to know where to find out more
about the "non-statist socialism" that David Wild mentioned...
>(3) Civic Liberalism: A decent society is a liberal society; and a liberal
>society is one that tolerates differences in philosophy and life-style.
>However, the stability and healthy functioning of a liberal society depends
>on citizens of a liberal state possessing certain 'liberal civic virtues'.
>These civic virtues include, most importantly: tolerance, mutual respect
>,and reciprocity. Liberal citizens must be tolerant, mutually respectful,
>and, as an aspect of mutual respect, they must be willing to make a fair
>contribution to the community, to reciprocate the benefits which other
>citizens labour to provide for them. The liberal state does have a
>legitimate job to do in supporting these specific civic virtues. What gives
>these values their authoritative status, however, is not that they happen
>to be 'widely accepted'; it is simply that they are intimately connected
>with the maintenance of a stable liberal regime.
John Browning * 71 Richmond Ave * London N1 0LX
t +44 171 700 1230 * f +44 171 700 5255
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing