tolerance in my understanding essay

• Personality

Tolerance, Acceptance, Understanding

...and how they differ in everyday life and in research..

Posted February 25, 2014 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

Many of my blog columns aim at clarifying concepts or shedding new light on them. For example, I have posted dozens of pieces on the race concept, aimed at disentangling biology from culture (e.g., " What Race Is George Zimmerman? "); and my book, The Myth of Race , discusses the race concept from multiple perspectives.

Occasionally, I also compare concepts related to each other—for example, envy and jealousy —for the insights that result. That is what I would like to do here, by considering tolerance and acceptance and then thinking about them in relation to understanding.

Let’s begin with some abbreviated Wikipedia definitions:

Tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Acceptance in human psychology is a person's assent to the reality of a situation, recognizing a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit .

Tolerance is a virtue. It is a version of the golden rule in that, insofar as we want others to treat us decently, we need to treat them decently as well. It is also a pragmatic formula for the functioning of society, as we can see in the omnipresent wars between different religions, political ideologies, nationalities, ethnic groups, and other us-versus-them divisions. It is a basis for the First Amendment protections that enabled the United States to avoid the religious strife that plagued Europe for centuries. (And it is a reason to be skeptical of slogans such as “Zero Tolerance.”)

Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. If a sign of tolerance is a feeling of “I can live with X (behavior, religion, race, culture, etc.),” then acceptance moves beyond that in the direction of “X is OK.” You can tolerate something without accepting it, but you cannot accept something without tolerating it. For example, when a son or daughter tells a parent about an unwelcome career choice, marital partner, or sexual identity , he or she wants that information not just to be tolerated, but to be accepted.

Moving beyond tolerance and acceptance, we come to a third concept: understanding . Here is Wikipedia’s shortened definition:

Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message, whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.

Here is the problem. It is possible to tolerate or accept someone without understanding him or her, and the same goes for tolerating or accepting a different culture. And the converse is also true. It is possible to understand a culture or a person without acceptance, or even tolerance—think, for example, of undercover spies.

It is good to know that some people are impressively free from prejudice against those with whom they have had little or no contact (or even abstract knowledge), as part of a live-and-let-live attitude toward life.

Tolerance and/or acceptance are desirable, but they are not a substitute for understanding. They are relevant for getting along with others in the world (though understanding helps), but understanding is essential for the social and behavioral sciences

This latter point may seem obvious, but it is not universally recognized in cross-cultural research. Some studies are done in the following manner:

1. An English-language personality test developed in the United States is translated into several languages.

2. The test is given to people (usually college students) in a variety of countries and languages.

3. The results are interpreted as showing specific average personality differences among cultures.

The problem with such research is that there is no research on the test in many or all of the countries studied, and there is no way of knowing whether the personality dimensions measured even exist in those cultures. For example, one could develop a test of “Americanism” and get the results for 20 countries. This would allow researchers to rank cultures on that variable, even though it is irrelevant to their existence.

I remember visiting China a number of years ago when a psychology professor there discussed his research on the “ Big Five ” personality dimensions ( openness -to-experience, conscientiousness , extraversion , agreeableness , and neuroticism —OCEAN). Many American psychologists believe that these are fundamental dimensions of personality. Yet my Chinese colleague said that his research had not found a dimension of openness, but had found a dimension of face-saving. So we can see that scores of Americans on the dimension of face-saving would be as culturally meaningless in the United States as scores of Chinese on openness-to-experience are in China.

It is good that some researchers are tolerant and accepting of other cultures, but these positive attitudes do not provide a shortcut to understanding the cultures that they include in their research.

Jefferson M. Fish, Ph.D. , is a Professor Emeritus of psychology at St. John's University. He has authored and edited 12 books, including The Myth of Race .

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for tolerance essay topics? Writing about tolerance is easy with us! Find here top writing prompts and examples, together with topics on tolerance and respect.

🏆 Best Tolerance Essay Examples

📌 interesting tolerance essay topics, 👍 hot topics about tolerance, ❓ tolerance essay questions.

The concept of tolerance is crucial nowadays. Tolerance makes it possible for people of various races, nationalities, ages, and cultural backgrounds to peacefully coexist. In your tolerance essay, you might want to talk about why it is so important in society. Another option is to compare the levels of tolerance in various countries in the world. One more idea is to focus on the ways to promote tolerance and respect in schools, offices, and in everyday life.

• Importance of Religious Tolerance Essay The Hindu pattern is again evidence of the fact that all religions are depictions of the experiences of the people involved and the conceptual systems that they deduced from them.
• Religious Tolerance in Ottoman Empire Religious tolerance in the Ottoman Empire could not be compared to religious tolerance in the Roman Empire because diversity was not allowed in the Roman Empire.
• Tolerance and Respect for Cultural Differences The author concludes the essay in the third section by revisiting the thesis statement and highlighting the various approaches used to develop attitudes that promote respect and tolerance.
• Tolerance with Other Beliefs and Values People should live according to some rules and should value the moral rules according to which other people live. I am inclined to think that moral rules and values are mostly presented by our religion […]
• Abrahamic, East Asian and South Asian Religions and Concept of Religious Tolerance It is indeed true that religious tolerance and the problem of religious diversity present a major danger to individuals, societies and the world at large.
• Netflix: Solving the Problem of Increasing People’s Stress Tolerance Currently, an obvious fact is the increase in the number of psychosomatic diseases, in the origin and course of which the leading role belongs to the influence of traumatic factors.
• A Visit to the Museum of Tolerance in LA The museum is a storehouse of the relics of racism to the xenophobia that has led man to commit heinous crimes in the name of faith and belief.
• The Goddess: The Cry for Female Tolerance Feminism echoes throughout the plot of the movie through the life of the main character and through the reactions of the people around her.
• Exploring Glucose Tolerance and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus In the case of a glucose tolerance test for the purpose of diagnosing GDM type, the interpretation of the test results is carried out according to the norms for the overall population.
• Undiscovered Killers: The Ineffectiveness of Zero-Tolerance Policies The ineffectiveness of zero-tolerance policies is the social aspect that enables and empowers serial killers to kill and remain unidentified for a long time.
• The Mongol Empire: Cruelty and Tolerance One of the apparent pieces of evidence of the barbarism and cruelty of the Mongol army can be the Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire.
• Possibility of Improving Gluten Tolerance Using Necator Americanus The next phase, which is the introduction of the hookworm larvae, improves the gluten tolerance levels. The disease that the introduction of hookworm is expected to treat is celiac disease.
• Measuring the Salt Tolerance of Plants The variety of crops grown and the need for agricultural measures for soil moisture and irrigation depend on the arable land belonging to a particular category.
• Fault Tolerance of an Information System In a soft fault tolerance focus is on data security incase an eventuality that hinder general functioning of the system is witnessed.
• Risk Tolerance and Business Ethics In this case, basic critical thinking is reflected in considering the former type of risks while it is not applied to evaluating the latter one.
• A Visit to the Museum of Tolerance The location is an ideal place for those interested in learning about the traditional culture and history of ancient people, giving a wide view of what happened in the past and the effect and the […]
• White Women, Black Men: History and Tolerance The reasons for such changes and fluctuations may have varied from social to political and economic; and in her book White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South Martha Hodes undertakes the task […]
• Zero-Tolerance Policies and Student Rights One of the main arguments for the idea that ZTPs violate students’ rights is connected to instances of discrimination. In particular, they may result in students from disadvantaged groups being more likely to partake in […]
• Museum of Tolerance and Cultural Diversity Issues The description of the exhibit devoted to the Holocaust at the Museum of Tolerance is provided hereafter. I have recently visited the exhibit devoted to the Holocaust at the Museum of Tolerance, and I am […]
• Chimamanda Adichie: The Issue of Equality and Tolerance After centuries of discrimination and alienation between the communities of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, after hundreds of years of wars based on religion and nationality, modern society has slowly started coming to senses and […]
• Zero-Tolerance Policing Style The findings obtained from this study may be used in improving the efficiency of zero tolerance policing or in deciding whether to abolish the policing style.
• Ethical Issues: Risk Tolerance It might be possible to state that when it comes to issues related to risk tolerance, the ethical dimension of these issues is similar to other their dimensions in some ways, but different in others.
• European Framework National Statute for Tolerance Promotion Besides, the article with the Statute helps to clarify the main points intolerant relations between people, the development of national relations, and even the respect to migrants and other social minorities.
• Religious Pluralism and Tolerance Therefore, it is possible to state that all religions have the same goal though they may have different tools to achieve it but people should embrace the idea of religious pluralism, as it will enable […]
• Religious Tolerance and Theology Therefore, tolerance can be defined as the aspect of respecting people in their different nature and not demanding any same action from their beliefs From the Jewish perspective, extending their laws to encompass other religions […]
• Tolerance and Equal Attitude to People With this in mind, it is possible to say that it is a kind of segregation which is now officially promoted. That is why, it is clear for me that some actions are needed to […]
• Religious Tolerance in Different Systems of Beliefs The purpose of this paper is to explore the subject of religious tolerance and its usefulness in the academic approach to the religious phenomenon.
• Linguistics: Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Tolerance In my opinion, a person with some understanding of a local language is likely to find some of the social and cultural things in a foreign country awkward or abnormal.
• Show Boat: Encouraging Tolerance In the beginning of the musical play, the fight between the characters and the disagreements that seize by the end illustrates a sense of acceptance as well as tolerance amongst the different groups by all […]
• Major Religions: Contribution to Religious Tolerance In spite of the constant existence of religious fanaticism and prejudice experienced in most parts of the word, there has been a notable growth in religious tolerance.
• Tolerance and Truth in America During the founding of the United States of America, the Catholic faith seemed to be the predominant religion in the country.
• Freedom of Speech, Religion and Religious Tolerance As stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the pastor has the right to share ideas and information of all kinds regardless of the periphery involved and in this case, he should […]
• Tolerance and Pluralism in a Civil Society This is because the society is built by all kinds of people because everyone has a role to play in the society.
• The Acceptance and Tolerance Towards Gay Rights
• Tolerance, Cooperation, and Equilibrium Restoration in Repeated Games
• Understanding Compassion and Tolerance in Harper Lee’s Novel To Kill Mockingbird
• Three Different Perspectives on Tolerance, Equality and Freedom
• The Impact of Acceptance, Tolerance, and Forgiveness in Frankenstein, a Novel by Mary Shelley
• The Zero Tolerance Policy: Justified or Unreasonable
• Use and Application of the Zero Tolerance Policy in American Schools
• Schools Should Eliminate the Use of Zero-Tolerance Policies
• The Role of Lactose Tolerance in Pre-Colonial Development
• The Rise of Religious Tolerance in Protestant England in the Mid to Late 17th Century
• The Demoralizing Treatment of Students as Criminals Due to the Zero Tolerance Policies in American Schools
• The True Meaning of Tolerance and Its Importance for the Modern Society
• The Tolerance Approach to Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Programming
• Socio-Bioethics of Migration. The Deconstruction of Tolerance and Reinvention of Terror
• Tutorial on Religious Tolerance and the Film The Passion of the Christ
• Postmodernism Multiculturalism Tolerance and Political Correctness
• Tolerance, Empathy and Respect and Diversity Programming
• The Correlation Between Drug Tolerance and the Environment
• The Importance of the Concept of Tolerance in the LGBTQ Society
• Tolerance and Diversity for a Health Care Provider
• Vygotsky’s Theory of Social Learning & Tolerance Introduction Prejudices
• The Benefits of Religious Tolerance in American Society
• Tolerance for Uncertainty and the Growth of Informationally Opaque Industries
• Teaching and Modeling Homosexual Tolerance in the Public School System
• Waiting Tolerance: Ramp Delay vs. Freeway Congestion
• Tolerance and Kindness in the Novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
• Why Religious Tolerance Increased in the American Colonies
• The Relevance of Tolerance and Persecution ”The Crucible” by Arthur Miller
• White and Ety Uses Stereotypes to Promote Cross-Cultural Tolerance
• The Sign of the Cross, Tolerance and Indifference
• Sexuality and Public Policy Regarding Sexual Tolerance
• The Relationship Between Religious Tolerance and Ethnic Relation Practices Among MultiEthnic Youth in Malaysia
• Using Variable Reduction Techniques and Tolerance Intervals to Summarise a Fitness Testing Battery in Soccer
• The Impact of Tolerance as a Component of Organizational Culture on Individual Stress
• Stereotypes Used in White and Ety Promotes Cross-Cultural Tolerance
• The Effect of Visual Stimuli on Pain Threshold and Tolerance
• Social Problems Are Due to Society’s Tolerance of Immorality
• The Tolerance of Violence in America Review of Flaming Guns of the Purple Sage
• The Problem of Zero Tolerance Policies in the United States
• The Challenge of Tolerance Within a Multicultural Society
• Why Is Tolerance Important in Our Daily Life?
• What Is the Value of Tolerance?
• Why Is Tolerance Important for a Peaceful Society?
• How Can You Show Tolerance?
• What Is the Importance of Tolerance in Islam?
• How Can We Promote Tolerance in Our Society?
• Why Is It Important to Teach Tolerance?
• How Do You Show Tolerance in School?
• What Is an Idea of Religious Tolerance?
• How Can I Improve My Patience and Tolerance?
• What Does the Bible Say About Tolerance?
• How Do You Explain Tolerance to a Child?
• What Is the Benefit of Tolerance in Diversity?
• What Is Education Tolerance?
• How Does Tolerance Develop?
• What Is Cellular Tolerance?
• How Can Tolerance Help Prevent a Conflict?
• Why Tolerance Is Important in the Workplace?
• Is Tolerance Enough for Preventing Conflict in Society?
• How Does Tolerance Shift Your Attitude Towards Others?
• Why Is Tolerance Important in a Relationship?
• What Is the Most Serious Effect of Tolerance?
• What Does Developing a Tolerance Mean?
• Are Tolerance and Respect the Same Thing in the Workplace?
• What Is Tolerance Answer in One Sentence?
• What Is Tolerance and How It Affects Us?
• Does Tolerance Mean Acceptance?
• What Is Chronic Tolerance?
• What Does Love and Tolerance Mean?
• How Many Types of Tolerance Are There?
• Intelligence Essay Ideas
• Cultural Relativism Questions
• Personal Identity Paper Topics
• Ethical Relativism Essay Topics
• Pluralism Paper Topics
• Illegal Immigration Topics
• Religious Conflict Topics
• Ethics Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 1). 103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/

"103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 1 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 1 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

Tolerance is more than putting up with things – it’s a moral virtue

Honarary Research Fellow in Psychology , Australian Catholic University

Disclosure statement

Rivka T. Witenberg received funding from Large ARC SPIRT Grant; Department of Psychology Research Support Scheme, University of Melbourne and Australian Catholic University; Centre for Education for Human Values and Tolerance, Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv, Israel; The University of Melbourne Collaborative research Grant.

Australian Catholic University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

We hear a lot about tolerance these days.

Tolerance is a moral virtue best placed within the moral domain – but unfortunately it is often confounded with prejudice. Much of the psychological research about tolerance generally and about the development of children’s understanding of tolerance of others who are different from them has been examined through research about prejudice – and not through the moral domain. The assumption made is that absence of prejudice by default means a person is tolerant.

Prejudice and tolerance are actually theoretically different concepts – and not the opposite of each other. In fact, they coexist in most of us.

Tolerance is difficult to define, which may have led to limiting the study of tolerance in psychology in favour of studying prejudice. But, unlike prejudice, tolerance can be grounded in the moral domain which offers a positive approach to examining relationships between groups of people who are different from each other.

Based on its Latin origin, tolerance, or toleration as philosophers often refer to it, is most commonly viewed negatively as “putting up with” something we dislike or even hate. If a person is prepared to “put up with” something – along the lines of, I do not like the colour of your skin but I will still serve you not to lose your custom – that person is someone who does not discriminate but remains intolerant in thoughts and beliefs.

Besides, who wants to be tolerated or be “put up with”?

At the same time tolerance cannot be indiscriminate. Indiscriminate acceptance in its most extreme form could lead to recognition of questionable practice and human rights violations – for instance, child marriages and neo-Nazi propaganda.

Tolerance as a moral virtue

An alternative way for us to think of tolerance is to place it within the moral domain and recognise that it is what it is, a moral virtue.

Many recent philosophers have linked tolerance with respect, equality and liberty. Those such as Michael Dusche , John Rawls and Michael Walzer among others, argue that we should regard tolerance as a positive civic and moral duty between individuals, irrespective of colour, creed or culture.

In other words, it is a moral obligation or duty which involves respect for the individual as well as mutual respect and consideration between people. Tolerance between people makes it possible for conflicting claims of beliefs, values and ideas to coexistence as long as they fit within acceptable moral values.

So while different marriage practices fit in within acceptable moral values, sexual abuse of children is immoral and cannot be tolerated. I believe tolerance is an essential component in social unity and a remedy to intolerance and prejudice.

The idea that tolerance is a moral duty had been acknowledged by earlier civil libertarians, such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, John Stuart Mill and others. They argue that tolerant people value the individual, his or her independence and freedom of choice.

When tolerance is placed within the moral domain relating to fairness, justice and respect and avoiding causing harm to others, it can only be viewed as a positive moral virtue.

Psychological research supports the idea that tolerance is better placed within the moral domain. My own research with my students shows the best indicators and predictors of tolerance to human diversity are fairness and empathy.

Fairness and empathy are also very closely connected to moral development and reasoning. They are fundamental to any coherent moral philosophy.

Empathy and morality

Psychologists such as Johnathan Haidt believe empathy is the most important motivator for moral behaviour. Others such as Martin Hoffman argue empathy is a motivator of prosocial and altruistic or unselfish behaviour.

Empathic people are sensitive to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of others. They are able to place themselves in someone else’s shoes or understand how it would feel to be treated badly. Placing oneself in someone else’s shoes is the essence of tolerance.

My research shows that people of all ages including children have a strong sense of fairness and empathy towards others different from them in colour, creed or culture. They reject prejudice and intolerance between 70% and 80% of the time affirming tolerance based on fairness and empathy.

Moral values such as fairness, justice, empathy, tolerance and respect are shared, if not universal, values relevant to dealing with human diversity

Tolerance examined as separate concept could have unique implications for education and social policy. Education aimed at promoting a harmonious society could do well to focus more on the relationship between morality and tolerance. Grounding tolerance in theories of morality allows for an alternative educational approach to promote harmonious intergroup relationships.

Part of this education would involve developing a strong sense of fairness and justice and the ability to empathise with the plight of others who are different in racial characteristics, ethnicity or nationality.

This article is part of a series on public morality in 21st-century Australia.

• Morality series

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Senior Lecturer in Periodontics

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Sarah Peterson

Originally published in July 2003, Current Implications added by Heidi Burgess in December, 2019

Current Implications

When Sarah wrote this essay in 2003, social media existed, but it hadn't yet become popular or widespread.  Facebook and Twitter hadn't started yet (Facebook started in 2004, Twitter in 2006.)  More .... 

What is Tolerance?

Tolerance is the appreciation of diversity and the ability to live and let others live. It is the ability to exercise a fair and objective attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, religion, nationality, and so on differ from one's own.[1] As William Ury notes, "tolerance is not just agreeing with one another or remaining indifferent in the face of injustice, but rather showing respect for the essential humanity in every person."[2]

Intolerance is the failure to appreciate and respect the practices, opinions and beliefs of another group. For instance, there is a high degree of intolerance between Israeli Jews and Palestinians who are at odds over issues of identity , security , self-determination , statehood, the right of return for refugees, the status of Jerusalem and many other issues. The result is continuing intergroup conflict and violence .

Why Does Tolerance Matter?

At a post-9/11 conference on multiculturalism in the United States, participants asked, "How can we be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us?"[3] For many, tolerating intolerance is neither acceptable nor possible.

Though tolerance may seem an impossible exercise in certain situations -- as illustrated by Hobbes in the inset box on the right -- being tolerant, nonetheless, remains key to easing hostile tensions between groups and to helping communities move past intractable conflict. That is because tolerance is integral to different groups relating to one another in a respectful and understanding way. In cases where communities have been deeply entrenched in violent conflict, being tolerant helps the affected groups endure the pain of the past and resolve their differences. In Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis have tolerated a reconciliation process , which has helped them to work through their anger and resentment towards one another.

The Origins of Intolerance

In situations where conditions are economically depressed and politically charged, groups and individuals may find it hard to tolerate those that are different from them or have caused them harm. In such cases, discrimination, dehumanization, repression, and violence may occur. This can be seen in the context of Kosovo, where Kosovar Alabanians, grappling with poverty and unemployment, needed a scapegoat, and supported an aggressive Serbian attack against neighboring Bosnian Muslim and Croatian neighbors.

The Consequences of Intolerance

Intolerance will drive groups apart, creating a sense of permanent separation between them. For example, though the laws of apartheid in South Africa were abolished nine years ago, there still exists a noticeable level of personal separation between black and white South Africans, as evidenced in studies on the levels of perceived social distance between the two groups.[4] This continued racial division perpetuates the problems of intergroup resentment and hostility.

How is Intolerance Perpetuated?

Between Individuals: In the absence of their own experiences, individuals base their impressions and opinions of one another on assumptions. These assumptions can be influenced by the positive or negative beliefs of those who are either closest or most influential in their lives, including parents or other family members, colleagues, educators, and/or role models. 

In the Media: Individual attitudes are influenced by the images of other groups in the media, and the press. For instance, many Serbian communities believed that the western media portrayed a negative image of the Serbian people during the NATO bombing in Kosovo and Serbia.[5] This de-humanization may have contributed to the West's willingness to bomb Serbia. However, there are studies that suggest media images may not influence individuals in all cases. For example, a study conducted on stereotypes discovered people of specific towns in southeastern Australia did not agree with the negative stereotypes of Muslims presented in the media.[6]

In Education: There exists school curriculum and educational literature that provide biased and/or negative historical accounts of world cultures. Education or schooling based on myths can demonize and dehumanize other cultures rather than promote cultural understanding and a tolerance for diversity and differences.

What Can Be Done to Deal with Intolerance?

To encourage tolerance, parties to a conflict and third parties must remind themselves and others that tolerating tolerance is preferable to tolerating intolerance. Following are some useful strategies that may be used as tools to promote tolerance.

Intergroup Contact: There is evidence that casual intergroup contact does not necessarily reduce intergroup tensions, and may in fact exacerbate existing animosities. However, through intimate intergroup contact, groups will base their opinions of one another on personal experiences, which can reduce prejudices . Intimate intergroup contact should be sustained over a week or longer in order for it to be effective.[7]

In Dialogue: To enhance communication between both sides, dialogue mechanisms such as dialogue groups or problem solving workshops  provide opportunities for both sides to express their needs and interests. In such cases, actors engaged in the workshops or similar forums feel their concerns have been heard and recognized. Restorative justice programs such as victim-offender mediation provide this kind of opportunity as well. For instance, through victim-offender mediation, victims can ask for an apology from the offender and the offender can make restitution and ask for forgiveness.[8]

What Individuals Can Do

Individuals should continually focus on being tolerant of others in their daily lives. This involves consciously challenging the stereotypes and assumptions that they typically encounter in making decisions about others and/or working with others either in a social or a professional environment.

What the Media Can Do

The media should use positive images to promote understanding and cultural sensitivity. The more groups and individuals are exposed to positive media messages about other cultures, the less they are likely to find faults with one another -- particularly those communities who have little access to the outside world and are susceptible to what the media tells them. See the section on stereotypes  to learn more about how the media perpetuate negative images of different groups.

What the Educational System Can Do

Educators are instrumental in promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence . For instance, schools that create a tolerant environment help young people respect and understand different cultures. In Israel, an Arab and Israeli community called Neve Shalom or Wahat Al-Salam ("Oasis of Peace") created a school designed to support inter-cultural understanding by providing children between the first and sixth grades the opportunity to learn and grow together in a tolerant environment.[9]

What Other Third Parties Can Do

Conflict transformation NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and other actors in the field of peacebuilding can offer mechanisms such as trainings to help parties to a conflict communicate better with one another. For instance, several organizations have launched a series of projects in Macedonia that aim to reduce tensions between the country's Albanian, Romani and Macedonian populations, including activities that promote democracy, ethnic tolerance, and respect for human rights.[10]

International organizations need to find ways to enshrine the principles of tolerance in policy. For instance, the United Nations has already created The Declaration of Moral Principles on Tolerance, adopted and signed in Paris by UNESCO's 185 member states on Nov. 16, 1995, which qualifies tolerance as a moral, political, and legal requirement for individuals, groups, and states.[11]

Governments also should aim to institutionalize policies of tolerance. For example, in South Africa, the Education Ministry has advocated the integration of a public school tolerance curriculum into the classroom; the curriculum promotes a holistic approach to learning . The United States government has recognized one week a year as international education week, encouraging schools, organizations, institutions, and individuals to engage in projects and exchanges to heighten global awareness of cultural differences.

The Diaspora community can also play an important role in promoting and sustaining tolerance. They can provide resources to ease tensions and affect institutional policies in a positive way. For example, Jewish, Irish, and Islamic communities have contributed to the peacebuilding effort within their places of origin from their places of residence in the United States. [12]

When Sarah wrote this essay in 2003, social media existed, but it hadn't yet become popular or widespread.  Facebook and Twitter hadn't started yet (Facebook started in 2004, Twitter in 2006.) 

In addition, while the conflict between the right and the left and the different races certainly existed in the United States, it was not nearly as escalated or polarized as it is now in 2019.  For those reasons (and others), the original version of this essay didn't discuss political or racial tolerance or intolerance in the United States.  Rather than re-writing the original essay, all of which is still valid, I have chosen to update it with these "Current Implications." 

In 2019, the intolerance between the Left and the Right in the United States has gotten extreme. Neither side is willing to accept the legitimacy of the values, beliefs, or actions of the other side, and they are not willing to tolerate those values, beliefs or actions whatsoever. That means, in essence, that they will not tolerate the people who hold those views, and are doing everything they can to disempower, delegitimize, and in some cases, dehumanize the other side.

Further, while intolerance is not new, efforts to spread and strengthen it have been greatly enhanced with the current day traditional media and social media environments: the proliferation of cable channels that allow narrowcasting to particular audiences, and Facebook and Twitter (among many others) that serve people only information that corresponds to (or even strengthens) their already biased views. The availability of such information channels both helps spread intolerance; it also makes the effects of that intolerance more harmful.

Intolerance and its correlaries (disempowerment, delegitimization, and dehumanization) are perhaps clearest on the right, as the right currently holds the U.S. presidency and controls the statehouses in many states.  This gives them more power to assert their views and disempower, delegitimize and dehumanize the other.  (Consider the growing restrictions on minority voting rights, the delegitimization of transgendered people and supporters, and the dehumanizing treatment of would-be immigrants at the southern border.) 

But the left is doing the same thing when it can.  By accusing the right of being "haters," the left delegitimizes the right's values and beliefs, many of which are not borne of animus, but rather a combination of bad information being spewed by fake news in social and regular media, and natural neurobiological tendencies which cause half of the population to be biologically more fearful, more reluctant to change, and more accepting of (and needing) a strong leader. 

Put together, such attitudes feed upon one another, causing an apparently never-ending escalation and polarization spiral of intolerance.  Efforts to build understanding and tolerance, just as described in the original article, are still much needed today both in the United States and across the world. 

The good news is that many such efforts exist.  The Bridge Alliance , for instance, is an organization of almost 100 member organizations which are working to bridge the right-left divide in the U.S.  While the Bridge Alliance doesn't use the term "tolerance" or "coexistence" in its framing " Four Principles ," they do call for U.S. leaders and the population to "work together" to meet our challenges.  "Working together" requires not only "tolerance for " and "coexistence with" the other side; it also requires respect for other people's views. That is something that many of the member organizations are trying to establish with red-blue dialogues, public fora, and other bridge-building activities.  We need much, much more of that now in 2019 if we are to be able to strengthen tolerance against the current intolerance onslaught.

One other thing we'd like to mention that was touched upon in the original article, but not explored much, is what can and should be done when the views or actions taken by the other side are so abhorent that they cannot and should not be tolerated? A subset of that question is one Sarah did pose above '"How can we be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us?"[3] For many, tolerating intolerance is neither acceptable nor possible." Sarah answers that by arguing that tolerance is beneficial--by implication, even in those situations. 

What she doesn't explicitly consider, however, is the context of the intolerance.  If one is considering the beliefs or behavior of another that doesn't affect anyone else--a personal decision to live in a particular way (such as following a particular religion for example), we would agree that tolerance is almost always beneficial, as it is more likely to lead to interpersonal trust and further understanding. 

However, if one is considering beliefs or actions of another that does affect other people--particularly actions that affect large numbers of people, then that is a different situation.  We do not tolerate policies that allow the widespread dissemination of fake news and allow foreign governments to manipulate our minds such that they can manipulate our elections.  That, in our minds is intolerable.  So too are actions that destroy the rule of law in this country; actions that threaten our democratic system.

But that doesn't mean that we should respond to intolerance in kind.  Rather, we would argue, one should respond to intolerance with respectful dissent--explaining why the intolerance is unfairly stereotyping an entire group of people; explaining why such stereotyping is both untrue and harmful; why a particular action is unacceptable because it threatens the integrity of our democratic system, explaining alternative ways of getting one's needs met. 

This can be done without attacking the people who are guilty of intolerance with direct personal attacks--calling them "haters," or shaming them for having voted a particular way.  That just hardens the other sides' intolerance. 

Still, reason-based arguments probably won't be accepted right away.  Much neuroscience research explains that emotions trump facts and that people won't change their minds when presented with alternative facts--they will just reject those facts.  But if people are presented with facts in the form of respectful discussion instead of personal attacks, that is both a factual and an emotional approach that can help de-escalate tensions and eventually allow for the development of tolerance.  Personal attacks on the intolerant will not do that.  So when Sarah asked whether one should tolerate intolerance, I would say "no, one should not." But that doesn't mean that you have to treat the intolerant person disrespectfully or "intolerantly."  Rather, model good, respectful behavior.  Model the behavior you would like them to adopt.  And use that to try to fight the intolerance, rather than simply "tolerating it." 

-- Heidi and Guy Burgess. December, 2019.

Back to Essay Top

---------------------------------------------------------

[1] The American Heritage Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1994).

[2] William Ury, Getting To Peace (New York: The Penguin Group, 1999), 127.

[3] As identified by Serge Schmemann, a New York Times columnist noted in his piece of Dec. 29, 2002, in The New York Times entitled "The Burden of Tolerance in a World of Division" that tolerance is a burden rather than a blessing in today's society.

[4] Jannie Malan, "From Exclusive Aversion to Inclusive Coexistence," Short Paper, African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), Conference on Coexistence Community Consultations, Durban, South Africa, January 2003, 6.

[5] As noted by Susan Sachs, a New York Times columnist in her piece of Dec. 16, 2001, in The New York Times entitled "In One Muslim Land, an Effort to Enforce Lessons of Tolerance."

[6] Amber Hague, "Attitudes of high school students and teachers towards Muslims and Islam in a southeaster Australian community," Intercultural Education 2 (2001): 185-196.

[7] Yehuda Amir, "Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations," in Weiner, Eugene, eds. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (New York: The Continuing Publishing Company, 2000), 162-181.

[8] The Ukrainian Centre for Common Ground has launched a successful restorative justice project. Information available on-line at www.sfcg.org .

[9] Neve Shalom homepage [on-line]; available at www.nswas.com ; Internet.

[10] Lessons in Tolerance after Conflict.  http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/external-resource?biblio=9997

[11] "A Global Quest for Tolerance" [article on-line] (UNESCO, 1995, accessed 11 February 2003); available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/fight-against-discrimination/promoting-tolerance/ ; Internet.

[12] Louis Kriesberg, "Coexistence and the Reconciliation of Communal Conflicts." In Weiner, Eugene, eds. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (New York: The Continuing Publishing Company, 2000), 182-198.

Use the following to cite this article: Peterson, Sarah. "Tolerance." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/tolerance >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of May 19, 2024 -- Another in our weekly set of links from readers, our colleagues, and others with important ideas for our field.
• Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare : to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes

2. four conceptions of toleration, 3. the history of toleration, 4. justifying toleration, 5. the politics of toleration, other internet resources, related entries.

It is necessary to differentiate between a general concept and more specific conceptions of toleration (see also Forst 2013). The former is marked by the following characteristics. First, it is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44–54 on the components of toleration) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” Second, the objection component needs to be balanced by an acceptance component , which does not remove the negative judgment but gives certain positive reasons that trump the negative ones in the relevant context. In light of these reasons, it would be wrong not to tolerate what is wrong, to mention a well-known paradox of toleration (discussed below). The said practices or beliefs are wrong, but not intolerably wrong. Third, the limits of toleration need to be specified. They lie at the point where there are reasons for rejection that are stronger than the reasons for acceptance (which still leaves open the question of the appropriate means of a possible intervention); call this the rejection component . All three of those reasons can be of one and the same kind—religious, for example—yet they can also be of diverse kinds (moral, religious, pragmatic, to mention a few possibilities; cf. Newey 1999, 32–34 and Cohen 2014).

Furthermore, it needs to be stressed that there are two boundaries involved in this interpretation of the concept of toleration: the first one lies between (1) the normative realm of those practices and beliefs one agrees with and (2) the realm of the practices and beliefs that one finds wrong but can still tolerate; the second boundary lies between this latter realm and (3) the realm of the intolerable that is strictly rejected. There are thus three, not just two normative realms in a context of toleration.

Finally, one can only speak of toleration where it is practiced voluntarily and is not compelled, for otherwise it would be a case of simply “suffering” or “enduring” certain things that one rejects but against which one is powerless. It is, however, wrong to conclude from this that the tolerant need to be in a position to effectively prohibit or interfere with the tolerated practices, for a minority that does not have this power may very well be tolerant in holding the view that if it had such power, it would not use it to suppress other parties (cf. Williams 1996).

Based on these characteristics, we can identify three paradoxes of toleration that are much discussed in philosophical analyses of the concept, and each one refers to one of the components mentioned above. First, there is the paradox of the tolerant racist , which concerns the objection component. Sometimes people argue that someone who believes that there are “inferior races” the members of which do not deserve equal respect should be “more tolerant.” Thus the racist would be called tolerant if he curbed his desire to discriminate against the members of such groups, say, for strategic reasons. Thus if (and only if) we considered tolerance to be a moral virtue, the paradox arises that an immoral attitude (to think of other “races” in such way) would be turned into part of a virtue. What is more, the racist would be more “tolerant” the stronger his racist impulses are if only he did not act on them (cf. Horton 1996). Hence, seen from a moral perspective, the demand that the racist should be tolerant has a major flaw: it takes the racist objection against others as an ethical objection that only needs to be restrained by adding certain reasons for acceptance. It thus turns an unacceptable prejudice into an ethical judgment. From this it follows that the reasons for objection must be reasonable in a minimal sense; they cannot be generally shareable, of course, but they must also not rest on irrational prejudice and hatred. The racist, therefore, can neither exemplify the virtue of tolerance nor should he be asked to be tolerant; what is necessary is that he overcome his racist beliefs. This shows that there are cases in which tolerance is not the solution to intolerance.

Second, we encounter the paradox of moral tolerance , which arises in connection with the acceptance component (for various analyses of this paradox, see Ebbinghaus 1950, Raphael 1988, Mendus 1989, Horton 1994). If both the reasons for objection and the reasons for acceptance are called “moral,” the paradox arises that it seems to be morally right or even morally required to tolerate what is morally wrong. The solution of this paradox therefore requires a distinction between various kinds of “moral” reasons, some of which must be reasons of a higher order that ground and limit toleration.

Third, there is the paradox of drawing the limits , which concerns the rejection component. This paradox is inherent in the idea that toleration is a matter of reciprocity and that therefore those who are intolerant need not and cannot be tolerated, an idea we find in most of the classical texts on toleration. But even a brief look at those texts, and even more so at historical practice, shows that the slogan “no toleration of the intolerant” is not just vacuous but potentially dangerous, for the characterization of certain groups as intolerant is all too often itself a result of one-sidedness and intolerance. In a deconstructivist reading, this leads to a fatal conclusion for the concept of toleration (cf. Fish 1997): If toleration always implies a drawing of the limits against the intolerant and intolerable, and if every such drawing of a limit is itself a (more or less) intolerant, arbitrary act, toleration ends as soon it begins—as soon as it is defined by an arbitrary boundary between “us” and the “intolerant” and “intolerable.” This paradox can only be overcome if we distinguish between two notions of “intolerance” that the deconstructivist critique conflates: the intolerance of those who lie beyond the limits of toleration because they deny toleration as a norm in the first place, and the lack of tolerance of those who do not want to tolerate a denial of the norm. Tolerance can only be a virtue if this distinction can be made, and it presupposes that the limits of toleration can be drawn in a non-arbitrary, justifiable way.

The discussion so far implies that toleration is a normatively dependent concept . This means that by itself it cannot provide the substantive reasons for objection, acceptance, and rejection. It needs further, independent normative resources in order to have a certain substance, content, and limits—and in order to be regarded as something good at all. In itself, therefore, toleration is not a virtue or value; it can only be a value if backed by the right normative reasons.

The following discussion of four conceptions of toleration is not to be understood as the reconstruction of a linear historical succession. Rather, these are different, historically developed understandings of what toleration consists in that can all be present in society at the same time, so that conflicts about the meaning of toleration may also be understood as conflicts between these conceptions (cf. Forst 2013).

1. The first one I call the permission conception . According to it, toleration is a relation between an authority or a majority and a dissenting, “different” minority (or various minorities). Toleration then means that the authority gives qualified permission to the minority to live according to their beliefs on condition that the minority accepts the dominant position of the authority or majority. So long as their being different remains within certain limits, that is, in the “private” realm, and so long as the minority groups do not claim equal public and political status, they can be tolerated on pragmatic or principled grounds—on pragmatic grounds because this form of toleration is the least costly of all possible alternatives and does not disturb civil peace and order as the dominant party defines it (but rather contributes to it); and on principled grounds because one may think it is morally problematic to force people to give up certain deep-seated beliefs or practices.

The permission conception is a classic one that we find in many historical writings and in instances of a politics of toleration (such as the Edict of Nantes in 1598) and that—to a considerable extent—still informs our understanding of the term. According to this conception, toleration means that the authority or majority, which has the power to interfere with the practices of a minority, nevertheless “tolerates” it, while the minority accepts its inferior position. The situation or the “terms of toleration” are hierarchical: one party allows another party certain things on conditions specified by the first one. Toleration is thus understood as permissio negativa mali : not interfering with something that is actually wrong but not “intolerably” harmful. It is this conception that Goethe (1829, 507, transl. R.F.) had in mind when he said: “Tolerance should be a temporary attitude only: it must lead to recognition. To tolerate means to insult.”

2. The second conception, the coexistence conception , is similar to the first one in regarding toleration as the best means toward ending or avoiding conflict and toward pursuing one’s own goals. What is different, however, is the relationship between the subjects and the objects of toleration. For now the situation is not one of an authority or majority in relation to a minority, but one of groups that are roughly equal in power, and who see that for the sake of social peace and the pursuit of their own interests mutual toleration is the best of all possible alternatives (the Augsburg Peace Treaty of 1555 is a historical example). They prefer peaceful coexistence to conflict and agree to a reciprocal compromise, to a certain modus vivendi . The relation of tolerance is no longer vertical but horizontal: the subjects are at the same time the objects of toleration. This may not lead to a stable social situation in which trust can develop, for once the constellation of power changes, the more powerful group may no longer see any reasons for being tolerant (cf. Rawls 1987, 11, Fletcher 1996).

3. Different from this, the third conception of toleration—the respect conception —is one in which the tolerating parties respect one another in a more reciprocal sense (cf. Weale 1985, Scanlon 1996). Even though they differ fundamentally in their ethical beliefs about the good and true way of life and in their cultural practices, citizens recognize one another as moral-political equals in the sense that their common framework of social life should—as far as fundamental questions of rights and liberties and the distribution of resources are concerned—be guided by norms that all parties can equally accept and that do not favor one specific ethical or cultural community (cf. Forst 2002, ch. 2).

There are two models of the “respect conception,” that of “formal equality,” and that of “qualitative equality.” The former operates on a strict distinction between the political and the private realm, according to which ethical (i.e., cultural or religious) differences among citizens of a legal state should be confined to the private realm, so that they do not lead to conflicts in the political sphere. This version is clearly exhibited in the “secular republicanism” of the French authorities who held that headscarves with a religious meaning have no place in public schools in which children are educated to be autonomous citizens (cf. Galeotti 1993).

The model of “qualitative equality,” on the other hand, recognizes that certain forms of formal equality favor those ethical-cultural life-forms whose beliefs and practices make it easier to accommodate a conventional public/private distinction. In other words, the “formal equality” model tends to be intolerant toward ethical-cultural forms of life that require a public presence that is different from traditional and hitherto dominant cultural forms. Thus, on the “qualitative equality” model, persons respect each other as political equals with a certain distinct ethical-cultural identity that needs to be respected and tolerated as something that is (a) especially important for a person and (b) can provide good reasons for certain exceptions from or general changes in existing legal and social structures. Social and political equality and integration are thus seen to be compatible with cultural difference—within certain (moral) limits of reciprocity.

4. In discussions of toleration, one finds alongside the conceptions mentioned thus far a fourth one which I call the esteem conception . This implies an even fuller, more demanding notion of mutual recognition between citizens than the respect conception does. Here, being tolerant does not just mean respecting members of other cultural life-forms or religions as moral and political equals, it also means having some kind of ethical esteem for their beliefs, that is, taking them to be ethically valuable conceptions that—even though different from one’s own—are in some way ethically attractive and held with good reasons. For this still to be a case of toleration, the kind of esteem characteristic of these relations is something like “reserved esteem,” that is, a kind of positive acceptance of a belief that for some reason you still find is not as attractive as the one you hold. As valuable as parts of the tolerated belief may be, it also has other parts that you find misguided, or wrong (cf. Raz 1988, Sandel 1989).

To answer the question which of these conceptions should be the guiding one for a given society, two aspects are most important. The first one requires an assessment of the conflicts that require and allow for toleration, given the history and character of the groups involved; and the second requires an adequate and convincing normative justification of toleration in a given social context. It is important to keep in mind that the (normatively dependent) concept of toleration itself does not provide such a justification; this has to come from other normative resources. And the list of such resources, speaking both historically and systematically, is long.

In the course of the religious-political conflicts throughout Europe that followed the Reformation, toleration became one of the central concepts of political-philosophical discourse, yet its history reaches much further back into antiquity (for the following, see esp. Forst 2013, part 1; cf. also Besier and Schreiner 1990, Nederman 2000, Zagorin 2003, Creppel 2003, Kaplan 2007 and Bejan 2017). In stoic writings, especially in Cicero, tolerantia is used as a term for a virtue of endurance, of suffering bad luck, pain and injustice of various kinds in a proper, steadfast manner. But already in early Christian discourse, the term is applied to the challenge of coping with religious difference and conflict. The works of Tertullian and Cyprianus are most important in that respect.

Within the Christian framework, a number of arguments for toleration have been developed, based on charity and love for those who err, for example, or on the idea of the two kingdoms and of limited human authority in matters of religious truth, i.e., in matters of the divine kingdom. The most important and far-reaching justification of toleration, however, is the principle credere non potest nisi volens , which holds that only faith based on inner conviction is pleasing to God, and that such faith has to develop from within, without external compulsion. Conscience therefore must not be and cannot be forced to adopt a certain faith, even if it were the true one. Yet, Augustine who defends these arguments in his earlier writings, later (when confronted with the danger of a schism between Roman Catholics and the so-called Donatists) came to the conclusion that the same reasons of love, of the two kingdoms and of the freedom of conscience could also make intolerance and the use of force into a Christian duty, if it were the only way to save the soul of another (esp. Augustine 408, letter # 93). He cites numerous examples of reconverted Catholics to substantiate his position that the proper use of force combined with the right teaching can shake men loose from the wrong faith and open up their eyes so as to accept the truth—still “from within.” Accordingly, individual conscience can and sometimes must be subjected to force. Christian arguments thus both form the core of many modern justifications of toleration and yet are janus-faced, always bound by the superior aim to serve the true faith. Similar to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas later developed a number of reasons for limited and conditional toleration, drawing especially strong limits against tolerating any form of heresy.

The question of peaceful coexistence of different faiths—Christian, Jewish and Muslim—was much discussed in the Middle Ages, especially in the 12 th century. Abailard and Raimundus Lullus wrote inter-religious dialogues searching for ways of defending the truth of Christian faith while also seeing some truth—religious or at least ethical—in other religions. In Judaism and Islam, this was mirrored by writers such as Maimonides or Ibn Rushd (Averroes), whose defense of philosophical truth-searching against religious dogma is arguably the most innovative of the period (see esp. Averroes 1180).

Nicolas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei (1453) marks an important step towards a more comprehensive, Christian-humanist conception of toleration, though in the conversations among representatives of different faiths his core idea of “one religion in various rites” remains a Catholic one. Still, the search for common elements is a central, increasingly important topic in toleration discourses. This is much further developed in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s humanist idea of a possible religious unity based on a reduced core faith, trying to avoid religious strife about what Erasmus saw as non-essential questions of faith ( adiaphora ).

In contrast with this “irenic” humanist approach, Luther defended the protestant idea of the individual conscience bound only to the word of God, which marks the limits of the authority of the church as well as of the secular powers of the state (Luther 1523). The traditional arguments of free conscience and of the two kingdoms were radicalized in this period. The protestant humanist Sebastian Castellio (1554) attacks the intolerance of both Catholic and Calvinist practices and argues for the freedom of conscience and reason as prerequisites of true faith. In this period, decisive elements of early modern toleration discourse were formed: the distinction between church authority and individual religious conscience on the one hand and the separation of religious and secular authority on the other.

Jean Bodin’s work is important for the further development of modern ideas of toleration in two ways. In his Six Books of a Commonweal (1576), he develops a purely political justification of toleration, following the thought of the so-called Politiques , whose main concern was the stability of the state. For them, the preservation of political sovereignty took primacy over the preservation of religious unity, and toleration was recommended as a superior policy in a situation of religious plurality and strife. This, however, does not amount to the (late modern) idea of a fully secular state with general religious liberty. More radical still is Bodin’s religious-philosophical work on the Colloquium of the Seven (1593), a discourse among representatives of different faiths who disagree about fundamental religious and metaphysical issues. For the first time in the tradition of religious discourse, in Bodin’s work there is no dominant position, no obvious winners or losers. The agreement that the participants in the conversation find is based on respect for the others and on the insight that religious differences, even though they can be meaningfully discussed, cannot be resolved in a philosophical discourse by means of reason alone. Religious plurality is seen here as an enduring predicament of finite and historically situated human beings, not as a state to be overcome by the victory of the one and only true faith.

Marked by bitter religious conflicts, the 17 th century brought forth a number of toleration theories, among them three paradigmatic classics: Baruch de Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), Pierre Bayle’s Commentaire Philosophique (1686) and John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). In his historical critique of biblical religions Spinoza locates their core in the virtues of justice and love and separates it from both contested religious dogmas and from the philosophical search for truth. The state has the task of realizing peace and justice, thus it has the right to regulate the external exercise of religion. The natural right to freedom of thought and judgment and to “inner” religion cannot, however, be entrusted to the state; here political authority finds the factual limits of its power.

Bayle’s Commentaire is the most comprehensive attempt to refute the arguments for the duty of intolerance that go back to Augustine (and especially his interpretation of the parable “compel them to come in,” where the master orders his servants to force those who were invited to the prepared supper but did not attend to come in; see Luke 14, 15ff.). In his elaborate argument against the use of force in matters of religion, Bayle does not primarily take recourse to the idea that religious conscience must not and cannot be forced, for he was aware of the powerful Augustinian arguments against both points (cf. Forst 2008 and Kilcullen 1988). Rather, Bayle argued that there is a “natural light” of practical reason revealing certain moral truths to every sincere person, regardless of his or her faith, even including atheists. And such principles of moral respect and of reciprocity cannot be trumped by religious truths, according to Bayle, for reasonable religious faith is aware that ultimately it is based on personal faith and trust, not on apprehensions of objective truth. This has often been seen as a skeptical argument, yet this is not what Bayle intended; what he suggested, rather, was that the truths of religion are of a different epistemological character than truths arrived at by the use of reason alone. Connecting moral and epistemological arguments in this way, Bayle was the first thinker to try to develop a universally valid argument for toleration, one that implied universal toleration of persons of different faiths as well as of those seen as lacking any faith.

In important respects, this is a more radical theory than the (much more popular and influential) one developed by Locke, who distinguishes between state and church in an early liberal perspective of natural individual rights. While it is the duty of the state to secure the “civil interests” of its citizens, the “care of the soul” cannot be its business, this being a matter between the individual and God to whom alone one is responsible in this regard. Hence there is a God-given, inalienable right to the free exercise of religion. Churches are no more than voluntary associations without any right to use force within a legitimate political order based on the consent of the governed. Locke draws the limits of toleration where a religion does not accept its proper place in civil society (such as Catholicism, in Locke’s eyes) as well as where atheists deny any higher moral authority and therefore destroy the basis of social order.

In the 18 th century, the conception of a secular state with an independent basis of authority and the distinction between the roles of citizen and believer in a certain faith were further developed, even though Locke’s thought that a stable political order did require some common religious basis persisted (with a few exceptions, such as the French materialists). In the course of the American and the French Revolutions a basic “natural” right to religious liberty was recognized, even though the interpretations of what kind of religious dissent could be tolerated differed.

Thinkers of the French Enlightenment argued for toleration on various grounds and, as in Bodin, there was a difference between a focus on political stability and a focus on religious coexistence. In his On the Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu argues for the toleration of different religions for the purpose of preserving political unity and peace, yet he warns that there is a limit to the acceptance of new religions or changes to the dominant one, given the connection between a constitution and the morality and habits of a people. In his Persian Letters (1721), however, he had developed a more comprehensive theory of religious pluralism. The difference between the two perspectives—political and inter-religious—is even more notable in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writings. In his Social Contract (1762), he tries to overcome religious strife and intolerance by institutionalizing a “civic religion” that must be shared by all, while in his Emile (1762) he argues for the primacy of individual conscience as well as for the aim of a non-dogmatic “natural religion.”

The idea of a “religion of reason” as an alternative to established religions for the sake of overcoming the quarrels between them was typical for the Enlightenment, and is found in thinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot and Kant. In his parable of the rings (which goes back to medieval precursors) in the play Nathan the Wise (1779), G. E. Lessing offers a powerful image for the peaceful competition of established religions that both underlines their common ancestry as well as their differences due to multiple historical traditions of faith. Since there is no objective proof as to their truth for the time being, they are called upon to deliver such proof by acting morally and harmoniously until the end of time.

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) marks the transition to a modern conception of toleration, one that is no longer occupied with the question of religious harmony and does not restrict the issue of toleration to religious differences. In Mill’s eyes, in modern society toleration is also required to cope with other forms of irreconcilable cultural, social and political plurality. Mill offers three main arguments for toleration. According to his “harm principle,” the exercise of political or social power is only legitimate if necessary to prevent serious harm done to one person by another, not to enforce some idea of the good in a paternalistic manner. Toleration towards opinions is justified by the utilitarian consideration that not just true, but also false opinions lead to productive social learning processes. Finally, toleration towards unusual “experiments of living” is justified in a romantic way (following Wilhelm von Humboldt), stressing the values of individuality and originality.

The story of toleration would have to be continued after Mill up to the present, yet this short overview might suffice to draw attention to the long and complex history of the concept and to the many forms it took as well as the different justifications offered for it. Seen historically, toleration has been many things: An exercise of love for the other who errs, a strategy of preserving power by offering some form of freedom to minorities, a term for the peaceful coexistence of different faiths who share a common core, another word for the respect for individual liberty, a postulate of practical reason, or the ethical promise of a productive pluralistic society.

Many of the systematic arguments for toleration—be they religious, pragmatic, moral or epistemological—can be used as a justification for more than one of the conceptions of toleration mentioned above (section 2). The classic argument for freedom of conscience, for example, has been used to justify arrangements according to the “permission conception” as well as the “respect conception.” Generally speaking, relations of toleration are hierarchically ordered according to the first conception, quite unstable according to the conception of “coexistence,” while the “esteem conception” is the most demanding in terms of the kind of mutual appreciation between the tolerating parties. In each case, the limits of toleration seem either arbitrary or too narrow, as in the esteem conception, which only allows toleration of those beliefs and practices that can be ethically valued.

Accordingly, in current philosophical discussions of toleration in multicultural, modern societies, the “respect conception” is often seen as the most appropriate and promising. Yet in these discussions, toleration as “respect” can be justified in different ways. An ethical-liberal, neo-Lockean justification argues that respect is owed to individuals as personally and ethically autonomous beings with the capacity to choose, possibly revise and realize an individual conception of the good. This capacity is to be respected and furthered because it is seen as a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for attaining the good life (cf. Kymlicka 1995). Hence the argument presupposes a specific thesis about the good life—i.e., that only an autonomously chosen way of life can be a good life—which can, however, reasonably be questioned. One may doubt whether such a way of life will necessarily be subjectively more fulfilling or objectively more valuable than one adopted in a more traditional way, without the presence of a range of options to choose from. Apart from that, the ethical-liberal theory could lead to a perfectionist justification of policies designed to further individual autonomy that could have a paternalistic character and lack toleration for non-liberal ways of life. In other words, there is the danger of an insufficient distinction between the components of objection and rejection mentioned above (section 1).

Thus, an alternative, neo-Baylean justification of the respect conception seeks to avoid a particular conception of the good life, relying instead on the discursive principle of justification which says that every norm that is to be binding for a plurality of persons, especially norms that are the basis of legal coercion, must be justifiable with reasons that are reciprocally acceptable to all affected as free and equal persons. Such persons have a basic “right to justification” (Forst 2012a) which gives them the power to reject one-sided ethical or religious justifications for general norms. For a complete argument for toleration, however, this normative component has to be accompanied by an epistemological component which says that ethical or religious reasons, if reciprocally contested, cannot be sufficient to justify the exercise of force, since their validation depends on a particular faith that can reasonably be rejected by others who do not share it; its validity reaches into a realm “beyond reason,” as Bayle said (see also similar arguments by Rawls 1993, ch. 2, and Larmore 1996, ch. 7). Thus toleration consists of the insight that reasons of ethical objection , even if deeply held, cannot be valid as general reasons of rejection so long as they are reciprocally rejectable as belonging to a conception of the good or true way of life that is not and need not be shareable. While such a distinction between ethical reasons for objection and stronger, morally justifiable reasons for rejection tries to overcome the “paradox of moral tolerance” (see section 1 above), the “paradox of drawing the limits” would be solved by seeing as tolerable all such views or practices that do not violate the principle of justification itself (see Forst 2013).

With such a reflexive turn in the debate about toleration, a number of questions arise as to the alleged superior validity of the principle of justification and the plausibility of a neo-Baylean epistemology distinguishing between faith and knowledge. Can there be an impartial justification that is not in the same way a “party” to the contest of ethical truths and world-views? Might there be the possibility, using a phrase John Rawls (1993) coined in the context of his theory of justice, of a “tolerant” theory of toleration that is at the same time substantive enough to ground and limit toleration?

Any concrete use of the concept of toleration is always situated in particular contexts of normative and political conflict, especially in societies that are transforming towards increased religious, ethical and cultural pluralism – even more so when societies are marked by an increased awareness of such pluralism, with some cultural groups raising new claims for recognition and others looking at their co-citizens with suspicion, despite having lived together for some time in the past. These social conflicts always involve group-based claims for recognition, both in the legal and in the social sphere (see generally Patten 2014, Galeotti 2002). Contemporary debate has focused on questions of respecting particular religious practices and beliefs, ranging from certain manners of dress, including the burka, to certain demands to be free from blasphemy and religious insults (Laborde 2008, Newey 2013, Nussbaum 2012, Leiter 2014, Taylor and Stepan 2014, Modood 2013, Forst 2013, ch. 12). The general questions raised here include: What is special about religious as opposed to other cultural identities (Laborde and Bardon 2017)? When is equal respect called for and what exactly does it imply with respect to, for example, norms of gender equality (see Okin et al. 1999, Song 2007)? What role do past injustices play in weighing claims for recognition, and how much room can there be for autonomous forms of life in a deeply pluralistic society (Tully 1995, Williams 2000)?

Other connected and intensely debated issues of toleration include free speech and “hate speech,” (Butler 1997, Waldron 2012, Gerstenfeld 2013) as well as the ways in which new forms of digital communication change the nature of social and political discourse (Barnett 2007).

Finally, in light of Goethe’s remark that to tolerate also means to insult, those working from the perspective of a critical theory of toleration discuss how power can be exercised not only by denying toleration but also by disciplining when granting toleration (Brown 2006, Brown and Forst 2014). As much as a politics of toleration aims to express mutual respect, it also involves disagreement, mutual criticism, and rejection. We still face the challenge of examining the grounds and forms of a politics of toleration as an emancipatory form of politics.

• Augustine, 408, Letters , Vol. I (1–82), Vol. II (83–130), tr. S. Parsons, New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1951 and 1953.
• Averroes (Ibn Rušd), ~1180, Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence), transl. by. S. van den Bergh, London: Luzac & Co, 1954.
• Barnett, B. A., 2007, Hate group community-building online: A case study in the visual content of internet hate , New York: Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association.
• Bayle, P., 1685, Philosophical Commentary , A. Godman Tannenbaum (trans. and ed.), New York: Lang, 1987.
• Bejan, T., 2017, Mere Civility. Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration , Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
• Besier, G. and Schreiner, K., 1990, “Toleranz”, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe 6, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 445–605.
• Bodin, J., 1576, The Six Books of a Commonweal , R. Knolles (trans.), J. Mc Rae (ed.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.
• –––, 1588, Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime , M. Kuntz (trans.), Princeton, 1975.
• Brown, W., 2006, Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Brown, W. and Forst, R., 2014, The Power of Tolerance. A Debate , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Butler, J., 1997, Excitable Speech: A Politics of Performative , Abingdon: Routledge.
• Castellio, S., 1554, Concerning Heretics: Whether they are to be Persecuted , R. Bainton (trans. and ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, 1935.
• Cohen, A.J., 2014, Toleration , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Creppel, I., 2003, Toleration and Identity: Foundations in Early Modern Thought , New York: Routledge.
• Cusa, Nicholas, 1453, On Peaceful Unity of Faith, J. Hopkins (trans.), in Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa , Vol. 1, Minneapolis: Banning, 2001.
• Ebbinghaus, J., 1950, “Über die Idee der Toleranz”, Archiv für Philosophie 4, 1–34.
• Fish, S., 1997, “Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State”, Columbia Law Review , 97: 2255–2333.
• Fletcher, G., 1996, “The Instability of Tolerance,” in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 158–172.
• Forst, R., 2002, Contexts of Justice , J. Farrell (trans.), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• –––, 2008, “Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive Theory of Toleration”, in M. Williams, J. Waldron (eds.), Toleration and its Limits (Nomos XLVIII), New York: New York University Press, 78–113.
• –––, 2012, The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice , A. Allen (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2013, Toleration in Conflict. Past and Present , C. Cronin (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Galeotti, A. E., 1993, “Citizenship and Equality: The Place for Toleration,” Political Theory , 21: 585–605.
• –––, 2002, Tolerance as Recognition , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gerstenfeld, P., 2013, Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies , Los Angeles: Sage.
• Goethe, J. W., 1829, Maximen und Reflexionen, Werke 6, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1981.
• Horton, J., 1994, “Three (Apparent) Paradoxes of Toleration”, Synthesis Philosophica , 17: 7–20.
• –––, 1996, “Toleration as a Virtue”, in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 28–43.
• Kaplan, B. J., 2007, Divided by Faith. Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Kilcullen, J., 1988, Sincerity and truth. Essays on Arnauld, Bayle, and Toleration , Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
• King, P., 1976, Toleration , New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
• Kymlicka, W., 1995, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Laborde, C., 2008, Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Laborde, C. & Bardon, A. (eds.), 2017, Religion in Liberal Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Larmore, C., 1996, The Morals of Modernity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Leiter, B., 2014, Why Tolerate Religion? , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lessing, G. E., 1779, Nathan the Wise (Plays of Lessing), ed. E. Bell, London, 1888.
• Locke, J., 1689, A Letter Concerning Toleration ed. Tully, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983.
• Luther, M., 1523, “Secular Authority: To what Extent It Should Be Obeyed”, in Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings , J. Dillenberger (ed.), New York: Anchor Books, 1962.
• Mendus, S., 1989, Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism , Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
• Mill, J. S., 1859, On Liberty , G. Himmelfarb (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974.
• Modood, T., 2013, Multiculturalism , Cambridge: Polity.
• Montesquieu, 1721, Persian Letters , C.J. Betts (trans.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
• –––, 1748, On the Spirit of the Laws , A.M. Cohler, B.C. Miller, and H.S. Stone (trans. and eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Nederman, C., 2000, Worlds of Difference: European Discourses of Toleration , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Newey, G., 1999, Virtue, Reason and Toleration. The Place of Toleration in Ethical and Political Philosophy , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• –––, 2013, Toleration in Political Conflict , Cambridge University Press, 11–23.
• Nussbaum, M., 2012, The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age , Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
• Okin, M., 1999, Is multiculturalism bad for women? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Patten, A., 2014, Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Rights , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Raphael, D. D., 1988, “The Intolerable”, in S. Mendus (ed.), Justifying Toleration. Conceptual and Historical Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137–154.
• Rawls, J., 1987, “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 7: 1–25.
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Raz, J., 1988, “Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle,” in S. Mendus (ed.), Justifying Toleration. Conceptual and Historical Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–175.
• Rousseau, J.-J., 1762, On the Social Contract , in The Social Contract and other later political writings, V. Gourevitch (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• –––, 1762, Emile, or On Education , A. Bloom (trans.), New York: Basic Books, 1979.
• Sandel, M., 1989, “Moral Argument and Liberal Toleration: Abortion and Homosexuality,” California Law Review , 77: 521–538.
• Scanlon, T., 1996, “The Difficulty of Tolerance,” in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration. An Elusive Virtue , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 226–239.
• Spinoza, Baruch, 1670, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Gebhardt Edition), S. Shirley (trans.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001, 2 nd edition.
• Song, S., 2007, Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Taylor, C. and Stepan, A., 2014, Boundaries of Toleration , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Tully, J., 1995, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in the Age of Diversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Waldron, J., 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech , Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Weale, A., 1985, “Toleration, Individual Differences, and Respect for Persons,” in J. Horton and S. Mendus (eds.), Aspects of Toleration , London and New York: Methuen, 16–35.
• Williams, B., 1996, “Toleration: An Impossible Virtue?,” in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration. An Elusive Virtue , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 18–27.
• Williams, M., 2000, Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Zagorin, P., 2003, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West , Princeton: Princeton University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Augustine of Hippo | Bayle, Pierre | Bodin, Jean | Cusanus, Nicolaus [Nicolas of Cusa] | justice: international distributive | liberalism | Locke, John | Locke, John: political philosophy | Rawls, John | Spinoza, Baruch

Copyright © 2017 by Rainer Forst < forst @ em . uni-frankfurt . de >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Winning Essays

The Tolerance Means Dialogues challenge the misconception that it’s impossible for people of good will to find common ground on the hardest issues. The Dialogues harness and amplify the insights of Millennials and Gen Z—tomorrow’s leaders—who have come of age in an era of increasing diversity and a spirit of openness and inclusivity. Just look at the essays written by our scholarship winners. Tolerance, they urge, means moving beyond ambivalence and forging a path toward genuine respect.

The views of essayists are their own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of their home institutions or the Tolerance Means Dialogues.

Feel inspired? 

Learn how to submit your own essay for an upcoming dialogue. 

#ToleranceMeans Love Work

#ToleranceMeans Embracing Differences

#ToleranceMeans that We Must Never Become Complacent

#tolerancemeans freedom

#tolerancemeans freedom & diversity

• Dec 11, 2023

#tolerancemeans that growth and understanding is in the air

#tolerancemeans that you engage in dialogue with people who have different views

#tolerancemeans proximity

• Nov 28, 2023

#tolerancemeans that you respect other people as humans

#tolerancemeans internal change

• Nov 23, 2023

#tolerancemeans bridging the gap by understanding

#tolerancemeans a sustainable future

• Nov 22, 2023

#tolerancemeans realising solidarity, fraternity and dialogue

#tolerancemeans intersectionality

• Nov 15, 2023

#tolerancemeans humanizing your opposition

#tolerancemeans looking for similarities beyond the differences

#tolerancemeans that we have brave spaces

• Nov 1, 2023

#tolerancemeans that we should not fall victim to a false dichotomy

• Sep 19, 2023

#tolerancemeans perseverance

• Apr 28, 2023

#tolerancemeans acting in one's self-interest

#tolerancemeans you and I can annoy one another without getting the police involved

#tolerancemeans that we are open to listening

• Apr 26, 2023

#tolerancemeans different meanings exist and coexist

#tolerancemeans humanity

• Sep 16, 2022

#tolerancemeans no one person has a monopoly on truth

#tolerancemeans that I won't be scared to wear my hijab anymore.

#tolerancemeans that everyone feels welcome in education

• Apr 6, 2022

#ToleranceMeans Being Comfortable with the Uncomfortable

• Apr 3, 2022

#tolerancemeans the work of empathetic listening

• Apr 8, 2021

#ToleranceMeans that putting up with someone is not acceptance

#ToleranceMeans Sharing Your Story

• Oct 17, 2019

#Tolerance Means Taking a Few Steps Back to Move Forward

#ToleranceMeans having the courage to live alongside someone different from you

• Jun 13, 2019

#ToleranceMeans Pioneering Friendship

#ToleranceMeans that you've taken the first step towards loving someone different from you

• Nov 1, 2018

#ToleranceMeans having the courage to accept the beliefs of the people around you, even if you don’t understand them. All we need is to listen and be kind.

#ToleranceMeans instead of telling your ideological opponent why they’re wrong, ask them why they’re right

• Oct 18, 2018

#ToleranceMeans The Measure You Use Will Be Measured To You

#ToleranceMeans that there should be an appreciation of every diverse person and everyone should have the ability to live theirs life normally, while letting others live their own lives normally.

• Sep 17, 2018

#ToleranceMeans Making Tolerance a Reality

#Tolerancemeans the first step to Acceptance

#ToleranceMeans One Can Love and Be Loved

• Apr 25, 2018

#ToleranceMeans We Love Others for Their Differences

#ToleranceMeans Seeking Intentional Pluralism

• Apr 4, 2018

#ToleranceMeans acknowledging the discomfort that comes with that conflict.

#ToleranceMeans a society where people look at each other, acknowledge the unique things that make them who they are, and come together to revel in the intricacy and beauty of the world we live in.

• Mar 22, 2018

#ToleranceMeans an active endeavor

#ToleranceMeans Tolerance may be a worthy goal for our state, but in faith we can ask for so much more.

• Apr 4, 2017

#ToleranceMeans disagreeing with others, but truly understanding why they disagree with us.

#ToleranceMeans we can bridge important gaps and find common ground

• Mar 16, 2017

#ToleranceMeans allowing for possibilities in interaction, discourse, and understanding that pave the way for greater empathy and mutual respect.

#ToleranceMeans to do one’s best to uphold those values we hold near and dear

15 Tolerance Examples

Tolerance is the ability to accept and live with others for who they are. There are many things in life where people vary, and our acceptance of this diversity in life is vital to living together on a globalized planet.

For example, understanding and accepting the varying opinions in society about religion or politics (even when you disagree) is tolerance.

Increasingly, the idea of tolerance is seen as not enough: to tolerate means to grin and bear it, even if you don’t like it. Instead, we’re moving toward acceptance , a term that has less negative connotations.

Below are some examples of tolerance that you can apply in your life beginning today!

Tolerance Examples

1. accepting people’s traditions and religions.

People come from different religions, and they worship their god in their own way. These belief systems and traditions may seem strange or even outright wrong to you, but then you must understand that as long as the people are not harming others, they have a right to exercise their religion.

An example of intolerance in this case is a person confronting somebody who wears a hijab. The intolerant person being intolerant the Muslim because he or she feels affronted by a religion they don’t understand.

A tolerant person, on the other hand, would know that a person’s value and humanity goes beyond their religion. They come from a different perspective, and their choice to wear a certain religious outfit is their choice to make, not yours.

2. Accepting LGBTQI+ People

People are attracted to different types of people, and there is a wide spectrum of gender. Some people may look strange to you, but as a tolerant person, you would say that it’s okay for people to be different to you.

People who do not identify in the same way as their assigned gender at birth exist in this world and have just as much a right to be a part of our society anyone else. As we live in a diverse society, tolerance is required. This simply means treating them with equality and dignity even if you are not a part of their community.

3. Accepting People’s Political Stances

Politics today is divisive, especially in countries where there is democracy. Voters from different political camps seem to look at one another with disdain.

A tolerant and mature person may come to respect that intelligent people come to different conclusions about politics. (And, even if someone’s position seems unintelligent to you, it’s their right to hold that view!).

It is sad that some friendships and family relationships had to end because of political disagreements, but it’s a reflection of the division that has entered our civil society in recent decades.

4. Yimbyism

Yimby means “Yes in my back yard”. It’s the response to nimbyism (not in my backyard).

A nimby is a upper middle-class person who opposes affordable housing or racial diversity in their neighborhood. They’re often progressives who claim to be tolerant, but don’t want to actually share a community with people who aren’t wealthy like them.

Yimbyism is the response. It’s people who say they want a more diverse neighborhood (in terms of both class and race). They support affordable housing initiatives in their neighborhoods.

5. Inclusion of sub-cultural groups

Historically, moral panics have occurred when sub-cultural groups have become distrusted for the way they look or behave.

For example, in the UK in the 1970s, there was widespread moral panic about rock and punk music. Many parents worried that it would ‘corrupt’ the youth.

Today, the idea that The Ramones or The Who are the cause of any social problems seems laughable. But when new subcultures come on the scene, they’re often met with distrust and disdain by the establishment. This, of course, happened previously with Elvis and 1950s rock as well.

6. Tolerating dress codes

Earlier, I gave the example of tolerance of hijabs in the West as a sign of a tolerant society.

Some nations like France and provinces like Quebec have made moves to outlaw them. It’s arguable that this reveals a lack of tolerance . Quebec, in particular, has used the argument that the hijab is against liberal values, meaning that this topic is contestable and can be seen from multiple perspectives.

But there’s also the matter of more conservative societies accepting women in bikinis. If you walk around Aech in Indonesia, for example, women will be expected to cover up. Liberal women may find this offensive, too, so there are two sides of this same coin of tolerating others!

7. Integrated schools

In the United States, many schools remained separated by race right up into the 1950s and 60s. The integration of schools was a sign of increasing tolerance in American society.

Like many civil right, this did not come without a fight. Many people – black and white – protested and advocated hard for integration of schools, arguing that if children grew up together, then there would be greater trust, respect, and tolerance between the different ethnic and racial groups in society.

8. Accepting people you don’t get along with in the workplace

One of the most common times when we have to exercise tolerance is when we have to put up with a disagreeable colleague at work.

Tolerance may mean you need to accept when your colleague goes on a long diatribe in a meeting on a topic you don’t find relevant or useful. It may also mean in a university project that you need to find a way to include the perspectives of group members who you disagree with.

9. Free Speech

Free speech is a fundamental linchpin of a tolerant society. If we look to dictatorships around the world, one of the first things those societies lose is their freedom to speak out against the establishment.

Free speech means tolerating other people’s rights to say what they want, even if you don’t like it. It means allowing people to share tweets that you think are uncomfortable, letting people wear offensive clothing, and make jokes that might offend.

Today, there is a lot of debate about where to draw the line for free speech. Speech can offend and even cause people a lot of anguish. But lack of free speech also leads to the downfall of democracy.

10. Accepting the Right to Live the Way you Want

People have rights. For example, people have a right to food, privacy, security, shelter, etc. They have a right to be happy and live their lives decently.

Some intolerant people do not seem to understand the basic tenets of human rights. For example, an intolerant individual may deny someone the right to express his culture. The right thing to do is to respect an individual’s right to choose and right to live, provided that this exercise of rights does not violate the law.

11. Accepting People’s Ethnicity

Many countries today have matured in terms of respecting ethnic diversity. Societies are increasingly multicultural and as a result tolerance is increasingly required.

Tolerance of ethnicity means that you are not prejudicial about somebody simply because of the color of their skin or their family background. The same thing goes with stereotyping—one should not assume that just because someone comes from a certain ethnicity that they will hold certain beliefs or be a threat to anyone.

12. Accepting People’s Behaviors

This type of tolerance refers to exercising patience when people do something that bothers you. For example, a neighbor who has a temple in their backyard.

Tolerance in this situation means accepting that they can do what they want in their backyard so long as it isn’t rude or tangibly disruptive.

Of course, if people are partying almost every day, you also have the right to complain. In another case, some families may have children, and the children can make noise as they play. Yelling at these kids may be interpreted as intolerant.

13. Accepting the Poor and Downtrodden

Some people are poor and there is even sadly an underclass of people who are homeless, dirty, or smelly. We may cross paths with these people in public.

Intolerance of this situation means you dislike themand you do not want to see them around. You want them gone from your community as soon as possible!

On some occasions, you are within your rights to complain, especially if they are sleeping in front of your restaurant. However, getting disgusted and offended at the mere sight of someone who belongs to a different social class or because they are homeless and downtrodden is intolerant.

14. Accommodating for the Disabled

While in the past, society was generally ignorant of the disabled, today, society attempts to make reasonable accommodations for them. This is a reflection of increasing acceptance of difference.

For example, it can take a person with a disability sometime to walk up the stairs. In this case, you must be tolerant, which means you must exercise patience and wait behind that person.

The same thing goes with people who are seemingly slow mentally—you need to practice tolerance if they are taking a while to order or complete a transaction.

15. Accepting the Preferences of Others

Not all people like the same thing that you do. They may like rap music you, and you like rock. They may like fantasy novels, but you like dark humor.

An intolerant person may point out that the choice of the other person is cheap or unintelligent. This, of course, causes hurt to the others who hear it. In reality, nobody is correct as far as artistic preferences are concerned. The same thing goes for fashion choices.

See More: Examples of Preferences

16. Accepting Personality Differences

People have different personalities. People have different quirks, choices, humor, and ideals in life.

Tolerance of someone’s personality means not pushing or rubbing off somebody just because they are different from you. People must learn to accept their uniqueness, like the way he laughs, talks, smiles, etc. Without this level of tolerance, you will only cause unnecessary agitation among your group.

Tolerance is what makes a society peaceful. Without it, a given society that has a mixture of different people will be in a never-ending conflict.

Tolerance is something that schools, churches, and parents must teach their children. Intolerance must be nipped in the bud as soon as possible. Otherwise, children will grow up unreasonably hostile to others.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Animism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Magical Thinking Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?

1 thought on “15 Tolerance Examples”

Very helpful

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Tolerance — Intolerance, Its Roots and Consequences

Intolerance, Its Roots and Consequences

• Categories: Tolerance

About this sample

Words: 673 |

Published: Sep 12, 2023

Words: 673 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, the roots of intolerance, the consequences of intolerance, the imperative for fostering tolerance, 1. fear of the unknown, 2. cultural and religious influences, 3. economic inequality, 4. political manipulation, 1. social division, 2. human rights violations, 3. stifling of creativity and innovation, 4. eroded democracy, 1. education and awareness, 2. promoting dialogue, 3. legal protections, 4. promoting inclusivity.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4.5 pages / 2031 words

2 pages / 713 words

4 pages / 1902 words

5 pages / 2172 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Tolerance

Dworkin, S. H. (Ed.). (2019). The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies. Wiley Blackwell.Meyer, I. H. (Ed.). (2017). The Wiley Handbook of LGBTQ Psychology. Wiley Blackwell.Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes [...]

In the “Narrative Desire” chapter of his larger work, Reading for Plot, author Peter Brooks discusses the different modes of desire that exist within a reader. He argues that these desires are the forces of momentum brought to a [...]

In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien discusses the physical and emotional burdens that come along with war. The “things” that the soldiers carry are both literal and figurative. They carry sentimental items to remind them of [...]

Throughout war literature, characters of soldiers are fundamentally exposed. Young men go to war and come out with countless stories and scars from their adventures. For tremendous acts of bravery, some soldiers are presented [...]

Today Highly secure virtual grid is demanding in which you can share any resource from any cluster even with the existence of a fault in the system. Grid computing is a distributed computing paradigm that differs from [...]

"Opposites attract" may be a modern adage, but the concept has been present in many incarnations throughout history. In Chinese philosophy, the yin and yang are presented as opposing dynamics. To understand one, it is requisite [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Quest to Cultivate Tolerance Through Education

• Published: 28 February 2023
• Volume 42 , pages 231–246, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Dan Mamlok   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3910-7169 1  

390 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper examines the notion of tolerance in education. In general, tolerance is perceived as a means to resist hostility, raise awareness of cultural differences, mitigate violence, and maintain liberal and democratic values. In education, there are various initiatives, such as the International Day for Tolerance (UNESCO in Declaration of principles on tolerance, 1995), that aim to build resilience against different forms of hate and cultivate openness and acceptance of the other. Yet the idea of tolerance includes different understandings and interpretations. This paper argues that cultivating an embodied sense of tolerance among students, in particular in divisive communities, requires us to move beyond deliberative interpretations of tolerance and to advance a pragmatic understanding of tolerance through an agonistic lens. This paper starts with a review of several dominant interpretations of tolerance. The heart of the paper focuses on interpreting Dewey’s pragmatism as a theoretical basis for advancing tolerance. The final part of the paper explores how pragmatism through an agonistic lens can support a more flexible and humane approach to dealing with political conflicts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Regenerative and restorative pedagogy: The foundation of a new contract for cognitive justice

Te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Treaty of Waitangi, Principles and Other Representations

‘…we don’t bring religion into school’: issues of religious inclusion and social cohesion.

The “other is me” is an educational program in Israel that aims to raise empathy and tolerance among students.

I focus on these two approaches since they are the most influential the field of education. However, it is noteworthy that there are many other strains of agonism, which are beyond the scope of this paper’s discussion (Koutsouris et al. 2012 ).

In this paper I refer to the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel.

Abowitz, Knight, and Kathleen, and Mamlok, Dan. 2019. The case of #NeverAgainMSD: When proceduralist civics becomes public work by way of political emotion. Theory & Research in Social Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1586611 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ambrosio, John. 2019. Restoring the political: Exploring the complexities of agonistic deliberation in classrooms. A response to ‘empowering young people through conflict and conciliation: Attending to the political and agonism in democratic education.’ Democracy & Education 27 (1): 1–4.

Google Scholar  

Backer, David. I. 2019. Radical discussions: Agonistic democratic education. In Philosophy of education yearbook, 127–143. Philosophy of Education Society.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2016. Strangers at our door . Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Bekerman, Zygmunt. 2018. The graduate(s): The harvests of Israel’s integrated multicultural bilingual education. Race, Ethnicity and Education 21 (3): 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1294574 .

Bernstein, Richard J. 2010. The pragmatic turn . Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Boler, Megan. 1999. Feeling power: Emotions and education . New York: Routledge.

Burwood, Les, and Ros Wyeth. 1998. Should schools promote toleration? Journal of Moral Education 27 (4): 465–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724980270402 .

Chinnery, Ann. 2005. Cold case: Reopening the file on tolerance in teaching and learning across difference. In Philosophy of education , ed. Kenneth R. Howe. Normal, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Chudoba, Ewa. 2017. What controls and what is controlled? Deweyan aesthetic experience and Shusterman’s somatic experience. Contemporary Pragmatism 14 (1): 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-01401005 .

Cohen, Andrew Jason. 2014. Toleration . Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Dewey, John. 1910. How we think . Boston: D.C. Heath.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and education . Radford, VA: Wilder Publications.

Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and education . New York: Free Press.

Dewey, John. 1939. Freedom and culture . New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Dewey, John. 1930. Quality thought. In John Dewey, the later works, 1925–1953, vol. 5: 1929–1930 , ed. Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Englund, Tomas. 2016. On moral education through deliberative communication. Journal of Curriculum Studies 48 (1): 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1051119 .

Forst, Rainer. 2012. Toleration in conflict: Past and present . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Glover, Robert W. 2012. Games without frontiers? Democratic engagement, agonistic pluralism and the question of exclusion. Philosophy and Social Criticism 38 (1): 81–104.

Gusacov, Eran. 2020. Concerning the question of feasibility of political-civil education: Israel as a case study. Studies in Philosophy and Education 39: 167–185.

Hess, Diana, and Paula McAvoy. 2015. The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education . New York: Routledge.

Heyd, David. 1996. Introduction. In Toleration , ed. David Heyd, 3–17. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Israeli Ministry of Education. n.d. The international day for tolerance [Hebrew]. https://edu.gov.il/noar/minhal/info/Pages/holidays/events/international-day-for-tolerance.aspx

Knight Abowitz, Kathleen. 2018. The war on public education: Agonist democracy and the fight for schools as public things. Philosophical Inquiry in Education 28 (2): 1–15.

Knight Abowitz, Kathleen, and Mamlok, Dan. 2019. The case of #NeverAgainMSD: When proceduralist civics becomes public work by way of political emotion. Theory & Research in Social Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1586611

Knight Abowitz, Kathleen, and Mamlok, Dan. 2021. NeverAgainMSD student activism: Lessons for agonist political education in an age of democratic crisis. Educational Theory 70(6), https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12451

Koutsouris, George, Lauren Stentiford, Simon Benham-Clarke, and David Hall. 2021. Agonism in education: A systematic scoping review and discussion of its educational potential. Educational Review 74 (5): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1889983 .

Langmann, Elisabet. 2021. Tolerance and education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://oxfordre.com/education/view/ https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1512 .

Levinson, Meira. 2012. No citizen left behind . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lo, Jane C. 2017. Empowering young people through conflict and conciliation: Attending to the political and agonism in democratic education. Democracy & Education 25 (1): 2.

Macleod, Colin. 2010. Toleration, children and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 (1): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00493.x .

Marder, Michael. 2010. Groundless existence: The political ontology of Carl Schmitt . New York: Continuum.

Mason, Lance E. 2016. Cultivating civic habits: A Deweyan analysis of the national council for the social studies position statement on guidelines for social studies teaching and learning. Education and Culture 32 (1): 87–110. https://doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.32.1.87 .

Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Political Science Series 72: 1–17.

Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the world politically . New York: Verso.

Parker, Walter. 2010. Listening to strangers: Classroom discussion in democratic education. Teachers College Record 112 (11): 2815–2832.

Quantz, Richard. 2015. Sociocultural studies in education: Critical thinking for democracy . Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Rice, Suzanne. 2009. Education for toleration in an era of zero tolerance school policies: A Deweyan analysis. Educational Studies 45 (6): 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131940903338308 .

Rimon-Or, Anat, and Yossi Argaman. 2017. Ticking thought [Hebrew] . Haifa: Pardes.

Ruitenberg, Claudia. 2009. Educating political adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and radical democratic citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 28 (3): 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9122-2 .

Stanley, Jason. 2018. How fascism works: The politics of us and them . New York: Random House.

State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel. 2021. Education for living together and preventing racism [Hebrew]. In Audit annual report for 2021 71: 1095–1156. https://www.mevaker.gov.il/sites/DigitalLibrary/Pages/Reports/5272-12.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Tamir, Yuli. 2015. Teachers in the social trenches: Teaching civics in divided societies. Theory and Research in Education 13 (1): 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878514566555 .

Todd, Sharon. 2010. Living in a dissonant world: Toward an agonistic cosmopolitics for education. Studies in Philosophy & Education 29 (2): 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9171-1 .

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1995. Declaration of principles on tolerance . https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000151830

Williams, Bernard. 1996. Toleration: An impossible virtue? In Toleration , ed. David Heyd, 18–26. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, P.O. Box 39040, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Mamlok .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mamlok, D. The Quest to Cultivate Tolerance Through Education. Stud Philos Educ 42 , 231–246 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09874-8

Download citation

Accepted : 15 February 2023

Published : 28 February 2023

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-023-09874-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Democracy and education
• Citizenship education
• Political emotions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Student Essays

Essay on Tolerance | Meaning, Purpose & Importance in Life

Tolerance is not about everyone agreeing with you, tolerating others even if they don’t agree. Tolerance is understanding that while two people may disagree they are both entitled to their own opinion. Read the following well written essay on tolerance, meaning, purpose & importance of having tolerance in life, its uses and ways to develop tolerance for children & students.

Essay on Tolerance | Meaning, Purpose & Importance of having Tolerance in Life

Tolerance is the ability to accept the fact that there are things in life you cannot change. It is the ability to shrug the shoulders and keep moving forward. It’s about who you are, not what you want others to be or to do. Tolerance is giving everyone the same chance you would give yourself. You can think for yourself and have your own opinion, but you must allow others to do the same.

Importance of Tolerance in Life

Tolerance in education is about acceptance and understanding. Education will be enjoyable if you accept and understand that not everyone thinks and sees things in the same way as you. Education is not about learning to agree with others, it’s understanding that everyone has their own opinions and ways of thinking.

>>>>>> Related Post:     Essay on Ethics, Role & Importance in Life

The tolerance is not about being right or wrong, it’s about being able to understand different points of view. It is not about being a doormat, it’s about being able to listen and understand without allowing someone else to walk all over you.

Benefits of Tolerance

Tolerance is freedom of expression. It’s the freedom to be who you are without fear or judgement. It will allow you to take part in social activities without feeling like you are not good enough or that you don’t fit in. Tolerance will give you the understanding to know how to accept another’s choice and make your own informed decision.

Tolerance will give you the ability to show empathy for others and understand that not everything is black and white. Tolerance will give you understanding that there are reasons for things to happen, it will teach you patience. Tolerance is not about being right or wrong, it’s about being open minded and understanding other people have a different point of view.

Tolerance will let you realize that your life is full so you don’t have time to be cruel or unkind. Tolerance will give you the ability to let go of anger and live life to the full.

Tolerance is not about giving up on people, it’s understanding that you can’t change them but you can change how you react to them. Tolerance will give you the ability to make your own mind up about people without pressure from others.

Developing tolerance in Life

Tolerance in life isn’t something that is developed overnight. It takes a lifetime to learn how to practice tolerance in your daily life. Remember, tolerance is understanding and having an open mind, it is staying away from judgements and opinions.

The first step to tolerance is knowing that you can’t change how other people think and understand that you can’t force someone to be who you want them to be.

The second step is understanding that people will say and do things that you may not agree with, but it’s what they think is right. It’s a different point of view from your own. Remember, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions.

The third step is realizing that people will say things to get a reaction from you. It’s not about what they say it is about how you receive it and use your tolerance to either react or move forward. This can be a useful step toward self-development and growth and it will also give you the opportunity to practice your tolerance skills.

Tolerance will give you the ability to help others, it will give you courage and strength. Tolerance is about being able to have patience with people and understanding that even if you don’t agree with someone that does not mean you can not like them.

Tolerance will give your life purpose, it will give you the opportunity to teach, a skill of a lifetime. Tolerance is about being able to see people for who they are and accepting them for who they are.

Short Essay on Tolerance:

Tolerance is the ability to accept and respect different beliefs, opinions, customs, and cultures. In today’s world where diversity is everywhere, it is essential for people to be tolerant towards others. Tolerance promotes unity, peace, and harmony among individuals and communities.

Being tolerant means being open-minded and willing to learn from others. It also means being patient with those who have different views and understanding that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Tolerance helps us to see things from different perspectives and broadens our horizons.

Unfortunately, in recent times, we have seen a rise in intolerance towards minority groups, immigrants, and people with differing beliefs. This leads to discrimination, hate crimes, and even violence. As responsible citizens of the world, we must actively promote tolerance and speak out against any form of intolerance.

Tolerance is not about agreeing with others or compromising our own beliefs. It is about respecting the rights and freedoms of others, even if we don’t share their views. Let us strive to be more tolerant and embrace diversity in all its forms. Only then can we build a world that is truly inclusive and accepting. So, let us all pledge to be more tolerant and spread the message of peace and understanding.

Tolerance is a virtue that is often overlooked in society today. In a world where differences are constantly highlighted and emphasized, it is easy for people to become intolerant towards others. However, we must remember that tolerance is not about blindly accepting everything or everyone, but about understanding and respecting others.

One of the key benefits of tolerance is that it promotes unity and eliminates conflicts. When we are tolerant towards each other, there is less room for misunderstandings and disagreements. Instead, we learn to coexist peacefully and appreciate our differences.

Tolerance also plays a crucial role in fostering creativity and innovation. By being open to new ideas and perspectives, we can learn from others and come up with new and innovative solutions to problems. This is especially important in a globalized world where diversity is becoming the norm.

Moreover, tolerance helps to create a sense of belonging and inclusivity. When we are accepting of others, no matter their background or beliefs, everyone feels valued and respected. This leads to a more cohesive society where individuals are free to express themselves without fear of judgment or discrimination.

In conclusion, tolerance is a vital attribute that we must cultivate in ourselves and promote in our communities. It allows us to embrace diversity, avoid conflicts, and create a more harmonious world. Let us strive to be more tolerant and spread this message of acceptance and understanding to make the world a better place for everyone.

Tolerance Short Story:

Once upon a time, in the small town of Maple Creek, there lived two neighbors – Mr. Johnson and Mrs. Smith. Both of them were good friends and would often spend their evenings chatting on Mr. Johnson’s porch.

One day, while they were discussing various topics, Mrs. Smith brought up the subject of tolerance. She insisted that it was an important quality to possess in today’s society. Mr. Johnson, who was known for his short temper, scoffed at the idea and said that he didn’t believe in tolerating anyone who didn’t share his beliefs or values.

Mrs. Smith was taken aback by this response and decided to put Mr. Johnson’s tolerance to test. She invited her friend, Mrs. Patel, who was from a different cultural background, over for dinner the next day. Mrs. Patel had recently moved to Maple Creek and didn’t know anyone in the town.

As soon as Mr. Johnson saw Mrs. Patel, he felt uncomfortable and wanted her to leave immediately. However, Mrs. Smith insisted that she stay for dinner and get to know each other better.

Throughout the evening, Mr. Johnson was rude and made insensitive comments about Mrs. Patel’s cultural practices. But to his surprise, Mrs. Patel remained calm and didn’t take offense to any of his remarks. Instead, she patiently explained the significance behind her traditions and even shared some delicious traditional dishes with them.

By the end of the night, Mr. Johnson realized that he had been quick to judge and that his actions were not in line with the idea of tolerance. He apologized to Mrs. Patel for his behavior and thanked her for opening his eyes.

From that day on, Mr. Johnson became more open-minded and accepting towards people from different backgrounds. He learned that tolerance was not just about tolerating differences but also about embracing them and learning from them. Mrs. Smith was glad that her friend had a change of heart and they both laughed at the irony of the situation – Mr. Johnson, who didn’t believe in tolerance, ended up learning one of life’s most valuable lessons from someone he initially couldn’t tolerate.

This short story is a reminder that in today’s diverse world, it is important to practice tolerance towards others, even if their beliefs or values may differ from our own. By doing so, we not only create a more harmonious society but also grow as individuals by learning from each other’s perspectives and experiences.

Essay on Importance of Tolerance in Daily Life:

Tolerance is a virtue that has been emphasized by human societies for centuries. It refers to the ability to accept and respect differences in beliefs, opinions, and cultures without any hostility or discrimination. In today’s world filled with diversity, tolerance is more important than ever before. It plays a crucial role in maintaining social harmony and promoting peaceful coexistence.

One of the primary reasons why tolerance is essential in daily life is that it allows individuals to live together peacefully despite having differences. It helps people to understand and appreciate each other’s unique backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives without feeling threatened or judged. This, in turn, leads to a more inclusive and diverse community where everyone can feel accepted and valued.

Moreover, tolerance also enables open-mindedness and critical thinking. When individuals are tolerant, they are more likely to listen and consider different viewpoints instead of immediately dismissing them. This not only promotes healthy discussions but also encourages personal growth and development by challenging preconceived notions and biases.

In addition to promoting social cohesion, tolerance also contributes to personal well-being. By being tolerant towards others, individuals can reduce stress and avoid unnecessary conflicts. It allows them to focus on positive interactions and relationships, leading to a more fulfilling and satisfying life.

Furthermore, tolerance is crucial for building a peaceful and sustainable world. In today’s interconnected globalized society, it is essential to have mutual understanding and respect between people from different nations, cultures, and backgrounds. Tolerance helps bridge the gaps between individuals and promotes peace and cooperation.

However, despite its importance, tolerance is not always easy to practice. It requires patience, empathy, and a willingness to learn and understand others. In today’s world where divisiveness and intolerance seem prevalent, it is important for individuals to cultivate tolerance in their daily lives.

There are several ways individuals can incorporate tolerance into their everyday routine. One of the most effective ways is by educating oneself and others about different cultures, beliefs, and perspectives. This can be done through reading, attending cultural events, or engaging in conversations with people from diverse backgrounds.

Furthermore, practicing empathy and actively listening to others without judgment also promotes tolerance. It allows individuals to understand the feelings and experiences of others and encourages mutual respect and understanding.

In conclusion, tolerance is a crucial virtue that should be embraced in our daily lives. It promotes peace, inclusivity, personal growth, and a better understanding of the world around us. By practicing tolerance, we can create a more harmonious society and build a better future for generations to come.

So let us all strive towards becoming more tolerant individuals and make the world a better place for everyone. As human beings, it is our responsibility to promote and practice tolerance in our daily lives, for a better and more harmonious world. Let us learn from each other’s differences and embrace diversity with open arms, for that is where true beauty lies.

How to Promote Tolerance in Society:

In today’s world, where diversity is the norm and people from different backgrounds live and work together, tolerance has become an essential value. It refers to the ability to accept and respect differences in beliefs, cultures, and behaviors without judgment or discrimination.

Tolerance plays a crucial role in promoting harmony, peace, and understanding among individuals and communities. Here are some ways we can promote tolerance in society:

1. Education

Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote tolerance in society. It helps people understand different perspectives, cultures, and beliefs, paving the way for acceptance and respect. Schools should include lessons on diversity, human rights, and inclusion in their curriculum. Moreover, educational institutions should encourage students to participate in cultural exchange programs and engage with individuals from diverse backgrounds.

2. Encourage Dialogue

Effective communication is key to promoting tolerance. It allows people to share their views and understand others’ perspectives without judgment. We should encourage open and respectful dialogue, especially on contentious issues, which can help bridge the gap between different groups and promote understanding.

3. Lead by Example

As individuals, we have the power to promote tolerance in our communities by setting an example through our actions and words. We can lead by accepting and respecting diversity in our daily interactions with others, whether it’s at work or in our neighborhoods.

4. Address Biases and Stereotypes

We all have biases, conscious or unconscious, that can lead to stereotypes and discrimination. It’s crucial to recognize and address these biases within ourselves and educate others about their harmful effects. We should also challenge stereotypes and misinformation whenever we encounter them.

5. Support Inclusive Policies

Policies that promote equality, diversity, and inclusion are essential for building a tolerant society. Governments, organizations, and institutions should develop and implement inclusive policies that address issues of discrimination, promote diversity, and provide equal opportunities for all.

6. Engage in Community Service

Volunteering and community service are great ways to promote tolerance in society. It allows individuals from different backgrounds to work together towards a common goal, fostering understanding and respect. Additionally, it gives us the opportunity to learn about other cultures and experiences, breaking down barriers and promoting acceptance.

7. Utilize Social Media

Social media has become a powerful tool for promoting tolerance in society. It allows us to connect with people from different backgrounds, share stories and experiences, and educate others about diversity and inclusion. We should use social media platforms responsibly to spread positivity and promote tolerance.

8. Celebrate Diversity

Instead of seeing diversity as a source of division, we should celebrate it. Every culture and individual brings something unique to the table, and embracing these differences can help build more tolerant communities. We can organize cultural events and festivals that showcase different traditions and encourage people to learn from one another.

>>>>>>>> Related Post:    Paragraph on Moral Values For Students

In conclusion, promoting tolerance in society is an ongoing process that requires effort and commitment from all of us. By educating ourselves and others, fostering dialogue, and embracing diversity, we can create a more tolerant world where everyone feels accepted and respected. Let’s work towards building a society where differences are celebrated rather than discriminated against.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Paper Writer Free >
• Essays Examples >
• Essay Topics >

Tolerance Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Tolerance , People , Belief , Respect , Society , Sociology , Religion , Behavior

Words: 1925

Published: 2020/12/28

Introduction If there is one problem that has plagued the human race for a long time, then it is tolerance. The human race is made up of a diverse range of individuals coming from all walks of life. These individuals espouse different characteristics, values, and beliefs. It is these differences that have often acted as an impetus for societal clashes and intolerance. Some cultural groups in the society cannot simply tolerate the values of each other. They disapprove of these cultural values and beliefs and have no qualms letting the other group know it. This then often leads to societal clashes. However, intolerance does not only occur across different cultural and social groups in the society. It can also occur between individuals in the society, some even from the same social group. This mainly occurs when one individual disapproves the other’s life choices, behaviors, attitudes, and values. Normally, intolerance is accompanied by lack of respect where individuals lose the respect they have for each other. This once again sets up a lot of individual clashes in the society. Ultimately, no one desires to see clashes in the society. The question that has therefore been asked by many philosophers is whether humans begins should exhibit tolerance towards people that they disapprove in order to show them respect or whether they should tolerate because they cannot simply bring themselves to respect them. This is indeed a contentious issue that has been explored and touched on by a relatively large number of authors. Some have explored the aspect of tolerance and what it exactly entails. Others have looked at the limits of tolerance and the situations where it is applicable and not applicable (Williams & Waldron, 2008). What emerges from all this literature is that tolerance is actually a subjective term that exhibits a lot of dynamism across different society contexts. What may, for example, be tolerable in one society may not necessarily be tolerable in another society. Tolerance also varies from one individual to the other. There are some levels of disapproval where tolerance is impossible. An individual may loathe the other so much that tolerating them is simply impossible. Alternatively, the behavior of one individual may be viewed by another so negative that once again, tolerance is impossible. The absence of tolerance can be accompanied by two specific scenarios. One, the individual who disapproves of the other’s behaviors may choose to simply walk away and never interact with that individual again (Scanlon, 2003). Simply put, the individual may cut the ties between him and the other individual completely because he simply cannot tolerate the other. In the second scenario, the individual who disapproves of the other may choose to confront them. Once again, confrontation is a subjective term. It can mean verbal confrontation or physical confrontation. Verbal confrontation is where the individual makes it known to the other why they disapprove their behavior attitude and values. Unfortunately, emotions might get high during the verbal confirmation, and this may translate to the individuals physically confronting each other by fighting. This can have disastrous effects for both parties, and they may end up injuring each other or worse still killing each other. However, the consequence for the first type of intolerance which constitutes walking away are less severe (McKinnon, 2005). In fact, some consider it be the noble thing to do when one does not approve of the other, whether it is their behavior, their attitude, their values or even their entire being. The conventional definition of tolerance is a deliberate choice to either put up or leave alone what one disapproves of dislikes when one actually has the power to react or act otherwise. It is usually a matter of degree (Scanlon, 2003). For example, one might actually leave the object or aspect of tolerance alone or one might actually choose to subject this object to ridicule criticism, pressure, social sanctions, physical force and persecution (Horton & Mendus, 1985) The issue of tolerance has in fact been debated for a long time, right from the days of John Locke who is in his famous manuscript “A Letter concerning Toleration” called for religious tolerance among various society groups of the time. Locke wrote his letter when England was cutting down its ties with the Roman Catholic Church and making Protestantism as the official religion. His principal claim in this manuscript was that the government, or the state authority should not attempt to use force in order to make citizens subscribe to a certain religion that the government considers to be the true religion (Locke, 1689). He also claimed that religious organizations and entities are voluntary in nature and, therefore, they have absolutely no right to use any form of coercive power over their member or even those who are not members. Simply put, Locke’s main arguments that force should never be used as a way of instilling beliefs to people who do not subscribe to these beliefs. In addition, people should not be persecuted for subscribing to a certain set of beliefs (Locke, 1689). Locke’s logic and model is applicable to not only the religious context but also across various other societal contexts. His logic can be interpreted as calling for respect and tolerance for the people whose beliefs are different. In fact, tolerance and respect go in hand in hand. Respect means that even if one may disagree with the belief and behaviors of the other, as long as they do not affect the being of one, the one has to respect the other. There are various things in the society that elicit tolerance and non-tolerance. As mentioned earlier, these include practices, ideologies, and beliefs, ethnic, social and religious groups among others. As it has been shown tolerance to some simply translates to putting up with. Respect, on the other hand, refers to feelings of deep admiration for an individual who has achieved something (McKinnon, 2005). This is often elicited by the achievements or the qualities of another individual.

It is, however, crucial to understand that there is indeed a huge difference between tolerance and respect.

Keen analysis reveals that tolerance alone is associated with some kind of ingenuity. People often use the term to show that they are acceptive of other cultures or values but do have any respect for them. This is a very biased approach given that in many cases, people do not actually take the time to learn why some people subscribe to certain behaviors. Members of the social liberal movement would perhaps argue that people are all the same and then being truly liberal translates to accepting that people are unique and different and that there is nothing wrong with this (Kukathas, 2003).

Being truly liberal also means respecting other people for their differences and not simply tolerating them (Kukathas, 2003).

A person can tolerate something but not welcome it. This then has the potential to make certain groups in the society or certain people in the society to feel weak and inferior. In fact, when keenly analyzed, tolerating comes off as quite disrespectful and demeaning. This is especially in regards to human beings. It may appear like it has the best intentions, but in reality, it does not and is in fact quite demeaning. The lifestyles and cultures are something to be tolerated but should instead be respected. As it has been emphasized, to say that one tolerates something brings out some form of bigotry. Tolerating is also not something final. One can tolerate something for some time, and when another time arrives, one may decide that they no longer want to tolerate that thing, and this is when conflict emerges (Heyd, 1996). Respect, on the other hand, is final. Unlike tolerance, one does not have to pretend to like or even welcome something. By respecting, it means that one acknowledges the difference in values views and beliefs and also acknowledges the right of the people to have these views. It is also means accepting that one may not be always right and that it is proper to give or provide room for other views and beliefs that may, in the long run, tend to be more accurate. Therefore, although one may not necessarily welcome the opposing views, respect means that one is mature enough to acknowledge that they exist. This becomes essential in not only comprehending a concept from several perspectives, but it also helps people to understand their own beliefs and views better (Kymlicka, 1995). For example, encountering a differing view and respecting it enables one to go back to his or her own view, gauge it with the differing view and try to assess the correctness of this view. In such a case, the answer is never definite and because of the presence of respect, one is able to leave it at that, unlike saying that one tolerates something only for this tolerance to wear off one day and for the person then to start confronting the other, perhaps even physically and then leading to unwanted results like societal clashes and injuries (McKinnon & Castiglione, 2003). John Stuart Mill is another famous philosopher who has explored the issue of tolerance. His 1869 essay “On Liberty” addresses the issue of liberty, and his logic can also be applied to other differing societal values, beliefs, and opinions. In fact, in this essay, he advocates for tolerance on not only religious differences but other aspects of life as well. Mills argues that the toleration in modern societies is actually required in order to cope with the many forms of irreconcilable social, political and cultural plurality. Mills provides three main arguments or points for toleration. In regard to the harm principle, he contends that the exercise of social or political power can only be legitimate if it is required to prevent the harming of one individual by another and not to enforce as specific idea of good or superiority in a manner that is paternalistic (Mills, 1859). His second point is that toleration towards varying opinions receives justification from the utilitarian concept or belief that both false and true opinions actually lead to social learning processes that are highly productive. The final argument brought forth by Mill is that toleration of experiments of living that are usual is in justifiable romantically because it stresses the values of originality and individuality which are natural urges in all human beings (Mills, 1859). Some may argue for example that tolerating and respecting people and ideas are two different things. For example, an argument may be brought forth that one can respect other people but when it comes to their ideas, tolerance is enough. However, double standards should not be applied. The situation can perhaps be helped by understanding that ideas do not exist on their own. They do not exist out of people’s minds and, in fact, for one to gain knowledge on differing ideas; one often has to hear them from s second person show believes in them. Therefore, it would not be proper to substantiate ideas from people and when it comes to respect, it should be applied generally to only people but to their ideas as well since they are one and the same (Kymlicka, 1995). The current society is characterized by the plurality of ideas, views and opinions on almost everything. The same society is also characterized by a host of social, cultural and political differences as well individuals’ differences between people. These differences often lead to disapproval, and when this occurs, people can either choose to tolerate or respect these differences. This essay has shown that simply tolerating, although helpful in some situations, is not as effective as respecting differing views, behaviors or values. Tolerance may wear off in the future, but respect is final and in addition to preventing conflict and social clashes, it enables persons to understand concepts from different perspectives and also analyze their own views and opinions. Therefore, respect should always take precedence over tolerance.

Scanlon, Timothy, 2003. The Difficulty of Tolerance. Essays in Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–201. Kukathas, Chandran. 2003. The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKinnon, Catriona. 2005. Toleration: A Critical Introduction, London & New York: Routledge. Heyd, David. 1996. Toleration: An Elusive Virtue. Princeton: Princeton University Press; Horton, John & Mendus., Susan. 1985., Aspects of Toleration: Philosophical Studies. London: Methuen. Susan Mendus., 1999. The Politics of Toleration: Tolerance and Intolerance in Modern Life. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McKinnon, Catriona & Castiglione, Dario. 2003. The Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies: Reasonable Toleration. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press. Williams, Melissa S & Waldron. Jeremy. 2008. Toleration and Its Limits. New York & London: New York University Press. Locke John., 1689. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Mill, John Stuart., 1859. On Liberty. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Share with friends using:

• Example Of Research Paper On Ghosts Of Mississippi By Rob Reiners
• Example Of Turkish Settlement Patterns Ottoman City In The Balkans Essay
• Segregation Essays
• Veto Essays
• Downturn Essays
• Jeremy Bentham Essays
• Ruin Essays
• Volkswagen Essays
• Peer Pressure Essays
• Sierra Leone Essays
• Patronage Essays
• Wage Increase Essays
• Textbook Essays
• Admin Essays
• Middle School Essays
• Readiness Essays
• Comprehension Essays
• Misrepresentation Essays
• Climb Essays
• Litigation Essays
• Proctor Essays
• Subprime Essays
• Hedge Essays
• Housing Market Essays
• Latvia Essays
• Ferry Essays
• Lithuania Essays
• Ghost Essays
• Carnival Essays
• Mother In Law Essays
• Daughter In Law Essays
• Hurt Essays
• Illumination Essays
• Memorization Essays
• Cottage Essays
• Dispatch Essays
• Heir Essays
• Bad Debt Essays
• Allowance Essays
• Diary Essays
• Inclination Essays
• Digestive Essays
• Cardiovascular System Essays
• Turban Essays
• Islamophobia Essays

We use cookies to improve your experience with our site. Please accept before continuing or read our cookie policy here .

Wait, have you seen our prices?

• Website Inauguration Function.
• Vocational Placement Cell Inauguration
• Media Coverage.
• Certificate & Recommendations
• Privacy Policy
• Science Project Metric
• Social Studies 8 Class
• Computer Fundamentals
• Introduction to C++
• Programming Methodology
• Programming in C++
• Data structures
• Boolean Algebra
• Object Oriented Concepts
• Database Management Systems
• Open Source Software
• Operating System
• PHP Tutorials
• Earth Science
• Physical Science
• Sets & Functions
• Coordinate Geometry
• Mathematical Reasoning
• Statics and Probability
• Accountancy
• Business Studies
• Political Science
• English (Sr. Secondary)

Hindi (Sr. Secondary)

• Punjab (Sr. Secondary)
• Accountancy and Auditing
• Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Technology
• Automobile Technology
• Electrical Technology
• Electronics Technology
• Hotel Management and Catering Technology
• IT Application
• Marketing and Salesmanship
• Office Secretaryship
• Stenography
• Hindi Essays
• English Essays

Letter Writing

• Shorthand Dictation

Essay on “Tolerance” Complete Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.

The world needs more Tolerance

“Tolerance is the only real test of civilization”. It was Arthur Kelps who thus extolled the virtue of tolerance. Man in the 21 st century believes he is more civilized than his ancestors. But is he also more tolerant than them? Unfortunately, the virtue of tolerance is not abundant in the world of today and the world is in dire need of it.

          Tolerance can be defined as the possession of  a fair and objective perspective and attitude towards those people who are of different races, religions, nations or have a set of opinions, beliefs and ideas the differ from our own.

          The importance of tolerance lies in its ability to make a human being broad enough in mind to be receptive to all  kinds of ideas. This, in turn , enables on e to widen one’s knowledge and exercise more freedom of choice and jugement for oneself. At the same time it creates a deeper understanding of other’s views and beliefs.

          Today, tolerance seems to be at a discount at all levels. At the most trivial sign of disagreement hot words are exchanged, almost immediately escalating into a fight and sometimes even murder. Family members find it difficult to put up with one another’s shortcomings – after all which human being is perfect? Communities, social groups, facial groups and nations- at all levels, there appears to be an acute lack of tolerance. Trivial misunderstandings, even rumors, give rise to riots with the accompanying bloodshed and permanent acres on relationship ; at the national level, there is civil war and border wars. So often a personal matter such as religion has been distorted to create hatred amongst peoples. If people learnt to tolerate one another’s views , perhaps such sad occurrences could be reduced if not totally removed from this world!  

          Why has tolerance level come down? Or, indeed, has it come down at all? Human beings all through the ages have shown intolerance of views and beliefs and customs alien to their own. Wars such as the Crusades have been fought because of religious intolerance. Racial tension has grown due to intolerance. So long as human beings give in to envy, malice, jealousy and greed, tolerance will suffer. In rent times several longstanding and accepted social institution have shown signs of crumbling. Family values, social values are all being eroded. An increasing materialistic and consumer culture has not helped to nurture essential values. The individual has assumed such importance that anything that militates against that individual’s own ideas is not collated.

          Enlightenment of individual is necessary. Universal values of liberalism, the willingness to listen to others, at most agree to disagree and not enter into fights of domination – these qualities have to be bred at every level of society. Democracy, after all, means tolerance of dissent; if this tolerance is not imbibed and nurtured, it will only give rise to another Bosnia, Chechnya or Kashmir.

About evirtualguru_ajaygour

commentscomments

Nyc and thnks

No comment it is awesome.

this has almost all the information I need for my project.

thank you, e virtue guru

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Quick Links

Popular Tags

Visitors question & answer.

• Md shoaib sarker on Short Story ” The Lion and The Mouse” Complete Story for Class 10, Class 12 and other classes.
• Bhavika on Essay on “A Model Village” Complete Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• slide on 10 Comprehension Passages Practice examples with Question and Answers for Class 9, 10, 12 and Bachelors Classes
• अभिषेक राय on Hindi Essay on “Yadi mein Shikshak Hota” , ”यदि मैं शिक्षक होता” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.

Download Our Educational Android Apps

Latest Desk

• Samkaleen Bhartiya Mahilaye  “समकालीन भारतीय महिलाएं” Hindi Essay, Nibandh 1000 Words for Class 10, 12 Students.
• Nijikarn – Gun evm Dosh  “निजीकरण: गुण एवं दोष” Hindi Essay, Nibandh 1200 Words for Class 10, 12 Students.
• Bharat mein Mahilaon ke Rajnitik Adhikar  “भारत में महिलाओं के राजनीतिक अधिकार” Hindi Essay, Nibandh 700 Words for Class 10, 12 Students.
• Bharat mein Jativad aur Chunavi Rajniti “भारत में जातिवाद और चुनावी राजनीति” Hindi Essay, Nibandh 1000 Words for Class 10, 12 Students.
• Example Letter regarding election victory.
• Example Letter regarding the award of a Ph.D.
• Example Letter regarding the birth of a child.
• Example Letter regarding going abroad.
• Letter regarding the publishing of a Novel.

Vocational Edu.

• English Shorthand Dictation “East and Dwellings” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Haryana General Sales Tax Act” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Deal with Export of Goods” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Interpreting a State Law” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.