Where Are the Boundaries of Tolerance?

Introduction and Definition - Despite the historical roots of the concept of tolerance, this term emerged as a doctrine in political thought and action during the religious wars of 16th century Europe. Tolerance can be seen as a result of Protestant reform. At that time, the conflict between conflicting and contradictory beliefs found no way for compromise and negotiation, and none of the parties could impose their religion on others. In such a campaign, 'tolerance' was cautiously proposed to prevent mutual killings among religious groups and to offer a solution, gradually finding its way. Tolerance is a kind of attitude that involves enduring the other side in society, leading to peaceful coexistence and aversion to violence. A 'tolerant' person does not interfere in the beliefs, behaviors, or lifestyles of others, even if those beliefs and behaviors are questionable to them. In truth, if the world were in complete harmony and there was nothing questionable in our view, there would be no need for tolerance. Tolerance is born out of differences, and according to the definition, a 'tolerant' individual must have the ability to confront conditions they find questionable, but consciously chooses not to use that ability, exercising 'tolerance' and endurance. Therefore, if a weak individual lacks the physical ability to confront or think of a conflict against what they dislike, or simply chooses silence and endurance out of ignorance, they have not practiced tolerance but have either been intimidated or chosen silence out of ignorance, which has nothing to do with the concept of tolerance. However, if the lack of intervention and aversion to violence is conscious and accompanied by the ability to confront, as Ramin Jahanbegloo states, it is a 'virtue.' This discussion does not aim to challenge Jahanbegloo's theory of 'the virtue of tolerance.' The goal is to clarify other dimensions of tolerance that were not discussed in that article. Support for Tolerance - Initially, tolerance was supported from various perspectives, including: - Politically, as a means that preferred peace over conflict; - Epistemologically, with considerations such as the fact that since achieving religious truth is impossible for humans, imposing unfounded beliefs is unjust, and thus tolerance must be practiced. - Finally, from an ethical standpoint, which prohibits coercion in matters related to religious beliefs. Consequently, tolerance emerged and grew as a form of coexistence in social space and gradually infiltrated the political sphere as well. An individual may practice tolerance for various reasons and under different conditions: First, out of caution, pragmatism, and foresight - to avoid social disruption and respect the peace of others. Second, from an ethical standpoint; that a capable individual respects others and does not interfere in their affairs, no matter how questionable they may be, despite having the ability to intervene. Third, for the sake of political and social peace and tranquility; which is usually done to maximize freedom and mutual respect for all. Problems of Tolerance - However, these definitions and positioning are merely general and raise considerations that prompt political thinkers to question the possibility of tolerance and its limits and types. In fact, pursuing these questions entangles the virtue of tolerance in numerous problems. There is no doubt that tolerance leads to the development of an open and free society, and liberal democracies need it. At the same time, negative signs also exist within this virtue. The differences and conflicts present in pluralistic democratic societies are not few, and such societies are often highly fragmented or specialized. They are inhabited by people who love liberal ideals and shy away from patriarchal and interventionist laws. Such societies need more tolerance because tolerance allows the entire community, despite deep differences in worldview, to benefit from freedoms and equalities. As mentioned at the beginning, tolerance means not interfering in the beliefs, behaviors, or lifestyles of others, even when they seem questionable. It is unclear why one should tolerate what they inherently disagree with and find questionable. Is this tolerance based on a belief in the infallibility of that behavior? If so, why do we call it questionable? Is there a degree of demagoguery in this attitude? Another problem of tolerance arises when an individual or group is the target of tolerance. People usually do not just want someone or society to be 'tolerant' of them. They believe their actions and thoughts are correct and seek to promote and disseminate them, and in fact, they seek 'supporters' who will affirm their thoughts and actions, not 'tolerant' individuals who merely endure them. With this reasoning, if tolerance is a virtue for the tolerant individual, it holds little value for the subject of tolerance and the other side, as the tolerant person does not believe in the legitimacy of the other side's claims and is merely enduring them. The differences and conflicts present in pluralistic democratic societies are not few, and such societies are often highly fragmented or specialized. They are inhabited by people who love liberal ideals and shy away from patriarchal and interventionist laws. Such societies need more tolerance because tolerance allows the entire community, despite deep differences in worldview, to benefit from freedoms and equalities and, at the same time, escape violence and live in peace and tranquility. In other words, what happens is plurality in unity and unity in plurality. Nevertheless, such considerations have led political thinkers to discuss the feasibility of tolerance and what type of tolerance could be more effective and suitable for addressing issues of non-violence in today's pluralistic democratic societies and even to take action regarding its practicality on a global scale. Some researchers consider tolerance vital for peace in society and political stability but believe it is a temporary modus vivendi adopted for pragmatic and precautionary reasons. Others believe that a form of positive tolerance can be achieved to address the issues of pluralistic societies and move beyond the negative aspects of tolerance as mere non-violence, developing it in global societies. Another problem of tolerance lies in its political and philosophical dimensions. The philosophical problem of tolerance relates to the nature and justifying essence of it. Is tolerance born out of necessity or virtue? And if it is a virtue, is it merely from a consequentialist, pragmatic, and precautionary perspective, or is it ethical as well? Can it only be defined with negative terms, such as 'non-interference,' or can it also be defined positively from the perspective of acceptance and affirmation? Finally, is it a legitimate tool for peace and coexistence, or is it considered one of the essential principles of social justice? Of course, open democracies have taken centuries to remove these issues and problems from their path and elevate tolerance to the level of a public right as we see it today in those countries. For example, in the 17th century, some European kings showed 'tolerance' towards holders of various religious beliefs within their territories out of compassion, not out of a belief in their equality with other religions or out of social justice and recognition of the rights of those groups. American philosopher Thomas Paine believed that the existence of tolerance as a principle of the 1791 French Constitution did not prove the existence of a legal right but was merely considered an absolute right of the king. However, when the rule of law was established, like other liberal democracies, the French Constitution recognized tolerance in the form of religious freedom. Now, at this point in time, the problem of tolerance mainly concerns authoritarian countries, especially religious fundamentalism, which must undergo a religious reform period similar to the Protestants to not only reach this virtue but also institutionalize it as both a right and one of the essential principles of social justice.