The main thesis of this article is that Western societies risk becoming Balkanized if they confront the superdiversity issue without sound management of intolerance. The Balkanization process has some essential features that allow the use of this term outside the area of origin (namely the Balkan Peninsula). Thus: It always affects a diverse political unit that comprises an inextricable medley of racial, ethnocultural, religious, ideological, or gender identities. It emerges only where neither the hegemony principle nor the confederacy principle (...) can sustain a divided population’s peaceful coexistence. It entails “antagonistic and conflict-oriented relationships resistant to resolution” between the groups or classes dissociated from a diverse political unit. It increases the density of physical and psychological boundaries between the formerly associated parts. It is perpetuated by the great sponsors of the dissociated parts. Any diverse political unit can enter a process of Balkanization, regardless of its degree of culture and civilization. Balkanization does not have a fatal course. Just as there is no society immune to Balkanization, there is no diverse society doomed to Balkanization. Balkanization can be prevented, checked, stopped, or reversed, depending on society members’ individual and collective actions. To survive, the superdiverse liberal democracies from the Euro-Atlantic area need an agonistic public sphere, where actionable truths emerge from a genuine clash of educated opinions. If intolerance management is the first step in preventing the Balkanization of a superdiverse political unit, promoting social and political tolerance towards all people who express educated opinions is the best starting point to genuine tolerance. The return to Enlightenment rationalism values that underpinned our freedom of thought and expression will help us meet the challenges inherent in current and future superdiversity. By feeding enlightened conversations and debates with genuine, educated opinions, people learn to have tolerance for “unpleasant” pieces of knowledge. Then, they spread general tolerance – as a by-product – across the entire society. (shrink)

This study assessed the possibility that the Budner Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale can offer an ideologically biased understanding of religious commitments. In a large sample of university undergraduates , Budner Scale correlations with Religious Interest, Religious Orientation, Need for Cognition, and Response Uncertainty supported the conclusion that religion predicts an inability to cope with uncertainty. At the same time, however, special procedures were used to create new scales expressing a Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity by translating Budner Scale items into (...) a language that was more compatible with religious beliefs. These Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity measures revealed that religiousness was associated with an ability rather than an inability to cope with uncertainty. Conflicting results between these Christian and nonreligious Tolerance of Ambiguity measures yielded additional support for the Ideological Surround Model of the psychology of religion. (shrink)

The word “intolerance” bears almost exclusively negative connotations. It is treated invariably, almost ideologically as a vice. What would it mean to reconceive of intolerance as a virtue—or, at the very least, a positive affect? In this essay, I analyze two complementary archives of positive intolerance: the records of the Prisons Information Group (the GIP) and the writings of one of its members: Michel Foucault. For the GIP, intolerance—as a militant refusal of intolerable material and political (...) conditions—is essential to the prison activist effort. Relatedly, for Foucault, scholarship—as the creative and/or critical act of naming and changing public awareness of intolerable conditions—can be a mode of political intolerance against an oppressive state. When paired together, these two archives trouble the easy severance of theory and practice, suggesting both that prison resistance efforts involve intellectual assessments of the intolerable and that engaged scholarship often doubles as intolerant activism. Both archives, moreover, agree that such intolerant activism is always rooted in personal investments and local struggles. This analysis allows me to suggest that, if the struggle against forces of marginalization and exploitation mobilizes resistant intolerance as a political and intellectual strategy, then intolerance may very well be commendable. It might, in fact, be virtuous. (shrink)

The relationship between religion, intolerance and conflict has been the subject of intense discussion, particularly in the wake of the events of 9-11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism. This book contains original papers written by some of the world's leading scholars in anthropology, psychology, philosophy and theology exploring the scientific and conceptual dimensions of religion and human conflict. The volume will be of great interest to academics across avariety of disciplines, including religious studies, philosophy, psychology, theology, cognitive science, (...) anthropology, politics, international relations, and evolutionary biology. It will also be ofinterest to the many lay readers who are interested in the phenomenon of religious conflict and who value access to the best available empirically informed perspectives on this topic. (shrink)

BackgroundUncertainty intolerance (IU), the tendency to think or react negatively toward uncertain events may have implication on individuals’ mental health and psychological wellbeing. The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 (IU-12) is commonly used across the globe to measure IU, however, its’ psychometric properties are yet to be evaluated in Iran with a Persian-speaking population. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to translate and validate the IU-12 among Iranian undergraduate students.Materials and MethodsThe multi-stage cluster random sampling was employed to (...) recruit 410 Iranian undergraduate students (260 females) from the Azad University to complete the IU-12, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-2, and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a cross-sectional design. In this study, face validity, content validity, construct validity, and concurrent validity were measured and Construct Reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha were used to measure reliability.ResultsThe impact score of the translated IU-12 indicated acceptable face validity (value of impact score was greater than 1.5). The value of Content Validity Index (CVI) and the value of Content Validity Ratio (CVR) were above 0.7 and 0.78, respectively. The values of CVI and CVR indicated the items had acceptable content validity and were deemed essential to the measure. The measurement model analysis showed the measure with two subscales had good fit indices (CMIN/df = 2.75, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.07, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.94). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated the scale was composed of the two subscales found in the English-version of the scale (prospective anxiety and inhibitory anxiety), and no items were removed from the scale. The values of CR (0.86) and Cronbach’s alphas (0.89) showed the measure had appropriate internal consistency.ConclusionThe findings support the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the IU-12. This scale could be used to reliably and accurately measure uncertainty intolerance among undergraduate students in Iran. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that businesses bear a pro tanto, negative, moral obligation to refuse to engage in economic relationships with representatives of intolerable ideologies. For example, restaurants should refuse to serve those displaying Nazi symbols. The crux of this argument is the claim that normal economic activity is not a morally neutral activity but rather an exercise of political power. When a business refuses to engage with someone because of their membership in some group, e.g., Black Americans, this (...) is a use of political power to signal that Black Americans are other. Conversely, when businesses engage with someone who is clearly representing an intolerable ideology, this is a use of political power that signals the acceptability of that ideology. Businesses should not do this. (shrink)

Discussions of monotheism often consider its bigotry toward other gods as a source of conflict, or emphasize its universality as a source of peaceful tolerance. Both approaches, however, ignore the combined danger and liberation in monotheism's 'intolerance.' In this volume, Christopher Haw reframes this important argument. He demonstrates the value of rejecting paradigms of inclusivity in favor of an agonistic pluralism and intolerance of absolutism. Haw proposes a model that retains liberal, pluralistic principles while acknowledging their limitations, and (...) he relates them to theologies latent in political ideas. His volume offers a nuanced, evolutionary, and historical understanding of the biblical tradition's emergence and its political consequences with respect to violence. It suggests how we can mediate impasses between liberal and conservative views in culture wars; between liberal inclusivity and conservative decisionism; and, on the religious front, between apologetics for exclusive monotheism and critiques of its intolerance. (shrink)

Quite shortly after the Prisons Information Group (GIP) was formed, Michel Foucault delivered a public announcement in which he called for a generalized practice of “active intolerance” against a wide range of disciplinary institutions. Due to three consistent scholarly reductions of the GIP’s legacy, the sense of “active intolerance” remains nebulous at best. Cast, by turns, as merely the offshoot of Foucauldian theory, a point of prison data collection, or a short-lived social movement (forgetting its lengthy successor: the (...) Prisoners Action Committee), the GIP has been regularly interpreted as a relatively circumscribed intellectual enterprise. Against these three reductions, we develop an account of the GIP as an inherently collaborative abolitionist effort that was trained on subjugated knowledges. And this, in fact, is the work of active intolerance. (shrink)

Diagnosable individuals, caregivers, and clinicians typically embrace a biological conception of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), finding that medical treatment is beneficial. Scientists study ADHD phenomenology, interventions to ease symptoms, and underlying mechanisms, often with an aim of helping diagnosed people. Yet current understanding of ADHD, jointly influenced by science and society, has an unintended downside. Scientific and social influences have embedded negative values in the ADHD concept, and have simultaneously dichotomized ADHD diagnosable from non-diagnosable individuals. In social settings insistent on certain (...) types of success, the negative values associated with the diagnostic category are attributed to people in the dichotomized "ADHD" group. Devaluation, institutional restrictions on "success" definitions and endpoints, and limited options for achieving success jointly constitute institutionalized intolerance of ADHD. (shrink)

In Intolerance, Polemics, and Debate in Antiquity scholars reflect on politico-cultural, philosophical, and religious forms of critical conversation in the ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, Graeco-Roman, and early-Islamic world. They enquire into the boundaries between debate, polemics, and intolerance, and address their manifestations in both philosophy and religion. This cross-cultural and inclusive approach shows that debate and polemics are not so different as often assumed, since polemics may also indicate that ultimate values are at stake. Polemics can also have (...) a positive effect, stimulating further cultural development. Intolerance is more straightforwardly negative. Religious intolerance is often a justification for politics, but also elite rationalism can become totalitarian. The volume also highlights the importance of the fluency of minorities in the dominant discourses and of their ability to develop contrapuntal lines of thought within a common cultural discourse. Contributors are: Robbert van den Berg, Stefan Beyerle, George Boys-Stones, Reuven Firestone, Pieter B. Hartog, Paul Heck, Paulin Ismard, George van Kooten, Marjo C. Korpel, Dominik Markl, Steve Mason, Peter Franz Mittag, James C. Oleson, James Carleton Paget, Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta, Jacques van Ruiten, Diego R. Sarrió Cucarella, Clare Wilde. (shrink)

Religion has been a constant throughout human history. Evidence of it dates from the earliest times. Religious practice is also universal, appearing in every region of the globe. To judge from recorded history and contemporary accounts, religious intolerance is equally widespread. Yet all the major faiths proclaim the golden rule, namely, to “love your neighbour as yourself.” When Jesus was asked by a lawyer, “Who is my neighbour?” he replied with the story of the good Samaritan—the man who bound (...) up the wounds and looked after the Israelite who was neither his co-religionist nor a member of his race. Jesus’ example has been rarely followed. What is it in religion—and not just in the Christian religion—that leads its members to limit their conception of their neighbour? How is it that, in preaching the universal brotherhood of mankind, religions so often practice the opposite? In my paper, I suggest some answers by focusing on the notions of faith, ethics and finitude. (shrink)

Religion has been a constant throughout human history. Evidence of it dates from the earliest times. Religious practice is also universal, appearing in every region of the globe. To judge from recorded history and contemporary accounts, religious intolerance is equally widespread. Yet all the major faiths proclaim the golden rule, namely, to “love your neighbour as yourself.” When Jesus was asked by a lawyer, “Who is my neighbour?” he replied with the story of the good Samaritan—the man who bound (...) up the wounds and looked after the Israelite who was neither his co-religionist nor a member of his race. Jesus’ example has been rarely followed. What is it in religion—and not just in the Christian religion—that leads its members to limit their conception of their neighbour? How is it that, in preaching the universal brotherhood of mankind, religions so often practice the opposite? In my paper, I suggest some answers by focusing on the notions of faith, ethics and finitude. (shrink)

In this article, it is argued that a significant internal tension exists in John Rawls' political liberalism. He holds the following positions that might plausibly be considered incongruous: (1) a commitment to tolerating a broad right of freedom of political speech, including a right of subversive advocacy; (2) a commitment to restricting this broad right if it is intended to incite and likely to bring about imminent violence; and (3) a commitment to curbing this broad right only if there is (...) a constitutional crisis. By supporting a broad right of freedom of political speech in Political Liberalism, he allows militant intolerant people such as Jihadists, White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis to advocate publicly their dangerously intolerant beliefs. Public advocacy of dangerously intolerant beliefs can be construed as subversive advocacy. As demonstrated by the historical examples of the Weimar Republic and the Second Spanish Republic, militant intolerant groups could use a right of subversive advocacy to threaten the stability of liberal democracies. Hence, by allowing them to exercise a broad right of freedom of political speech, Rawls could jeopardize that which he intends to defend, namely the actual political stability of a liberal democratic order. Lastly, Rawls' conception of ideal constitutional interpretation, which privileges a broad right of freedom of political speech, might be insufficient to deal effectively with the threat posed by militant intolerant groups. Yet a tradition of American constitutional interpretation that balances freedom of speech with other important constitutional and/or political values has overcome a civil war, two world wars, the Cold War and the 9/11 terrorist attacks without abandoning democracy or permanently renouncing those values. Still, Rawls' ideal approach to constitutional interpretation might, in hindsight, help us to understand some of the excesses and deficiencies of American jurisprudence in times of emergency.<br><br><br><br>. (shrink)

This study assessed the possibility that the Budner Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale can offer an ideologically biased understanding of religious commitments. In a large sample of university undergraduates , Budner Scale correlations with Religious Interest, Religious Orientation, Need for Cognition, and Response Uncertainty supported the conclusion that religion predicts an inability to cope with uncertainty. At the same time, however, special procedures were used to create new scales expressing a Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity by translating Budner Scale items into (...) a language that was more compatible with religious beliefs. These Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity measures revealed that religiousness was associated with an ability rather than an inability to cope with uncertainty. Conflicting results between these Christian and nonreligious Tolerance of Ambiguity measures yielded additional support for the Ideological Surround Model of the psychology of religion. (shrink)

Specific character of globalization can be understood only in connection with deep crisis of the nation-state and thus with sovereignty. The sovereignty organically includes territory. During globalization territory factor is not anymore the key principle of social and cultural life. Such phenomenon as Islamic fundamentalism (Islamism) fits quite well the structure of the theory of globalization in postmodernist interpretation. For Islamism as a subject of the world order the determining identity (as sets of the ontological aims determining its outlook and (...) purposes of political activity), i.e. determining, basic, fundamental to self-determination and activities is a creation of the Islamic world order, the world of Caliphate. Thus the Islamic fundamentalism focuses on universal nature of its identity. This activity ignores norms of international law and denies its key positions, such as state sovereignty, territorial integrity, firmness of borders, etc. Tolerance is an integral feature of the sovereignty. Weakening of sovereignty in conditions of globalization causes danger of strengthening of intolerance. Recognition of uniqueness, peculiarity and other civilization identity is a key to peaceful settlement of problems in conditions of the new global order as well as to establishment of philosophy of tolerance. (shrink)

A groundbreaking collection of writings by Michel Foucault and the Prisons Information Group documenting their efforts to expose France’s inhumane treatment of prisoners. Founded by Michel Foucault and others in 1970–71, the Prisons Information Group (GIP) circulated information about the inhumane conditions within the French prison system. Intolerable makes available for the first time in English a fully annotated compilation of materials produced by the GIP during its brief but influential existence, including an exclusive new interview with GIP member Hélène (...) Cixous and writings by Gilles Deleuze and Jean Genet. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This study investigated the effect of conspiracy ideation, moral disengagement, and intolerance of uncertainty on compliance with the anti-SARS-COV-2 social distancing rules and two other facets of people’s reactions toward the coronavirus crisis. A convenience sample of 245 Romanians completed an online survey in March 2020. Results indicate that conspiracy ideation is associated with lower assessments of virus risk and lower compliance with the confinement measures. Moral disengagement had a parallel effect of undermining personal compliance to the social (...) distancing regulations, highlighting the need to define social distancing as morally relevant and prevent individual justifications for noncompliance. (shrink)

Religion has been a constant throughout human history. Evidence of it dates from the earliest times. Religious practice is also universal, appearing in every region of the globe. To judge from recorded history and contemporary accounts, religious intolerance is equally widespread. Yet all the major faiths proclaim the golden rule, namely, to “love your neighbour as yourself.” When Jesus was asked by a lawyer, “Who is my neighbour?” he replied with the story of the good Samaritan—the man who bound (...) up the wounds and looked after the Israelite who was neither his co-religionist nor a member of his race. Jesus’ example has been rarely followed. What is it in religion—and not just in the Christian religion—that leads its members to limit their conception of their neighbour? How is it that, in preaching the universal brotherhood of mankind, religions so often practice the opposite? In my paper, I suggest some answers by focusing on the notions of faith, ethics and finitude. (shrink)

The Hyde Amendment and Roman Catholic attempts to put restrictions on Title X funding have been criticized for being intolerant. However, such criticism fails to appreciate that there are two competing notions of tolerance, one focusing on the limits of state force and accepting pluralism as unavoidable, and the other focusing on the limits of knowledge and advancing pluralism as a good. These two types of tolerance, illustrated in the writings of John Locke and J.S. Mill, each involve an (...) class='Hi'>intolerance. In a pluralistic context f where the free exercise of religion is respected, John Locke's account of tolerance is preferable. However, it (in a reconstructed form) leads to a minimal state. Positive entitlements to benefits like artificial contraception or nontherapeutic abortions can legitimately be resisted, because an intolerance has already been shown with respect to those that consider the benefit immoral, since their resources have been coop ted by taxation to advance an end that is contrary to their own. There is a sliding scale from tolerance (viewed as forbearance) to the affirmation of communal integrity, and this scale maps on to the continuum from negative to positive rights. Keywords: church and state, Hyde Amendment, Locke, Mill, religious liberty, Title X funding, toleration CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

A common justification for retributive views of punishment is the idea that injustice is intolerable and must be answered. For instance F. H. Bradley writes:Why … do I merit punishment? It is because I have been guilty. I have done ‘wrong’… Now the plain man may not know what he means by ‘wrong’, but he is sure that, whatever it is, it ‘ought’ not to exist, that it calls and cries for obliteration; that, if he can remove it, it rests (...) also upon him, and that the destruction of guilt, whatever be the consequences, and even if there be no consequences at all, is still a good in itself; and this, not because a mere negation is a good, but because the denial of wrong is the assertion of right.A wrong is something that ought not to exist and calls to be obliterated. If anyone is able to remove it, he is obligated to do so or the wrong will also be partly his. To deny or obliterate a wrong is to assert right, Bradley says—as if the two things were counterpoised, one able to cancel the other. It reminds us of the balance held by the figure of Justice, and of debts and credits in accounts. Paying a debt erases it; the debt no longer exists. In a similar way punishment is supposed to erase wrong. (shrink)

Draw on the protection motivation theory, this study investigated the impacts of intolerance of uncertainty on “untact” buying behavior, and examined the sequential mediating role of the perceived risk of COVID-19 variants and protection motivation. A total of 1,564 young individuals participated in the survey. The serial mediation analysis results reveal that intolerance of uncertainty influences one’s “untact” buying behavior through “perceived risk of COVID-19 variants - protection motivation.” Both internal and external factors worked together to accelerate the (...) transition of individuals’ consumption behavior during COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, our findings generate important implications for public mental health and economic recovery in the post-COVID-19 era. (shrink)

Si Levinas a souvent affiché son admiration pour le père fondateur de la phénoménologie, le rapport de filiation qui les unit semble s’arrêter au moment précis où l’analyse phénoménologique pénètre sur le terrain de l’intersubjectivité et rencontre la question d’autrui. Comme beaucoup de disciples et lecteurs de Husserl, Levinas a construit son analyse de l’altérité dans le sillage de l’échec auquel conduisait la cinquième des Méditations cartésiennes de Husserl, dans son incapacité flagrante à établir une authentique relation à autrui. Il (...) est pourtant possible de proposer une autre lecture de cette cinquième Méditation et de l’expérience de l’étranger que Husserl s’y attache à interroger et à décrire. Derrière la reconduction de l’altérité à l’ego qui en constitue le sens et en donne la mesure, ce qui se joue dans ces analyses, c’est d’abord l’effort de Husserl pour penser l’irréductibilité de la séparation depuis laquelle s’éprouve la vie en première personne du sujet. L’intolérance indépassable de l’ego, incapable de considérer autrui sans le ramener inévitablement à lui-même pour le constituer comme son double, peut alors prendre un sens positif : il ne s’agit plus du point d’achoppement ultime d’une phénoménologie constitutive en bout de course, incapable de prendre en vue la question de l’altérité, mais plutôt du point de départ d’une pensée originale de la relation à autrui à laquelle, comme le montre l’article de Chiara Pavan dans ce numéro, Levinas donnera toute sa mesure. (shrink)

The essays examine specimens of social intolerance drawn from a broad field of history and culture: Classical Greece, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and America. Themes include women’s legal rights; humanitarian law; legitimized child sacrifice; discrimination against racial and religious minorities; religious animosity; Just War morality; theological discord; philosophical antagonism.

Qu'est-ce que les Lumières ? Comment les mêmes exigences de la raison peuvent-elles inspirer à la fois Voltaire et Robespierre ? Comment a-t-on pu si véhémentement critiquer la religion au nom de la raison, et instituer trente ans après une religion de la raison ? Comment la raison a-t-elle pu en 1763 inspirer à Voltaire son Traité de la tolérance et justifier en 1793 l'intolérance de la loi des suspects ? S'agit-il de circonstances malheureuses, de déviations ? Ou n'avons-nous pas (...) plutôt affaire à une aussi inévitable qu'insurmontable amphibolie de la raison ? Tantôt l'humble raison implore de l'erreur le droit pour la vérité de prendre place dans le cortège public des autres opinions : elle revendique la tolérance. Tantôt la raison triomphante interdit tout droit à l'injustice et à l'erreur : c'est l'intolérance de la vérité. S'il en était ainsi, on comprendrait que l'histoire n'eût fait depuis que se répéter. (shrink)

Qu'est-ce que les Lumières? Comment les mêmes exigences de la raison peuvent-elles inspirer à la fois Voltaire et Robespierre? Comment a-t-on pu si véhémentement critiquer la religion au nom de la raison, et instituer trente ans après une religion de la raison? Comment la raison a-t-elle pu en 1763 inspirer à Voltaire son Traité de la tolérance et justifier en 1793 l'intolérance de la loi des suspects? S'agit-il de circonstances malheureuses, de déviations? Ou n'avons-nous pas plutôt affaire à une aussi (...) inévitable qu'insurmontable amphibolie de la raison? Tantôt l'humble raison implore de l'erreur le droit pour la vérité de prendre place dans le cortège public des autres opinions : elle revendique la tolérance. Tantôt la raison triomphante interdit tout droit à l'injustice et à l'erreur : c'est l'intolérance de la vérité. S'il en était ainsi, on comprendrait que l'histoire n'eût fait depuis que se répéter. (shrink)

When an activity is unwanted, administrators often adopt a zero tolerance policy towards that activity. The background assumption is that, by adopting a zero tolerance policy, one is doing everything that one can to reduce or eliminate the activity in question. Yet which policy best serves to reduce an unwanted behavior is always an empirical question. Thus, those who adopt a zero tolerance policy towards some behavior without first investigating and finding that they are in a set of circumstances where (...) that policy is the most cost-effective way of reducing or eliminating the undesirable behavior are committing the zero tolerance fallacy. (shrink)

Formed in the wake of May 1968, the Prisons Information Group (GIP) was a radical resistance movement active in France in the early 1970's. Theorist Michel Foucault was heavily involved. This book collects interdisciplinary essays that explore the GIP's resources both for Foucault studies and for prison activism today.

Most philosophers seem to think that argument expression is not normally a form of intolerance. Call this the ‘argument-friendly view’ of intolerance. In this article, I argue that the case for the argument-friendly view is much weaker than commonly thought. I consider three possible arguments for the argument-friendly view and conclude that all three fail. This leaves us with a choice: either reject the argument-friendly view, or accept it as a feature of the concept of tolerance which has (...) no rational basis apart from our everyday usage of the term. (shrink)

Most philosophers seem to think that argument expression is not normally a form of intolerance. Call this the ‘argument-friendly view’ of intolerance. In this article, I argue that the case for the argument-friendly view is much weaker than commonly thought. I consider three possible arguments for the argument-friendly view and conclude that all three fail. This leaves us with a choice: either reject the argument-friendly view, or accept it as a feature of the concept of tolerance which has (...) no rational basis apart from our everyday usage of the term. (shrink)

Contre la dégradation de l’usage ordinaire du terme tolérance, qui finit par indiquer la cohabitation dans l’indifférence, la pensée de Levinas offre des ressources originales permettant de penser la tolérance au niveau de la relation éthique avec autrui et de lui redonner ainsi une nouvelle vigueur. Un concept peu souligné par Levinas, et néanmoins présent dans son œuvre, celui du supporter, rend en effet possible cette lecture : être un moi implique de supporter la souffrance intolérable à laquelle nous sommes (...) exposés par la proximité d’autrui, et cela n’est possible qu’en se faisant le support d’autrui, c’est-à-dire en donnant un sens éthique à l’absurdité de la souffrance. Cette lecture, qui met l’accent sur la séparation du moi dans la relation à autrui, permet de tirer deux conséquences. La première est qu’elle met en relief une continuité entre la pensée de l’altérité de Levinas et celle de Husserl, telle qu’elle est abordée par la contribution de Pierre-Jean Renaudie dans ce même numéro. La deuxième est qu’elle permet de repenser la tolérance comme concernant d’abord le moi : ce n’est pas autrui que l’on doit tolérer, mais la souffrance intolérable en nous, pour la souffrance d’autrui. (shrink)

A common justification for retributive views of punishment is the idea that injustice is intolerable and must be answered. For instance F. H. Bradley writes:Why … do I merit punishment? It is because I have been guilty. I have done ‘wrong’… Now the plain man may not know what he means by ‘wrong’, but he is sure that, whatever it is, it ‘ought’ not to exist, that it calls and cries for obliteration; that, if he can remove it, it rests (...) also upon him, and that the destruction of guilt, whatever be the consequences, and even if there be no consequences at all, is still a good in itself; and this, not because a mere negation is a good, but because the denial of wrong is the assertion of right.A wrong is something that ought not to exist and calls to be obliterated. If anyone is able to remove it, he is obligated to do so or the wrong will also be partly his. To deny or obliterate a wrong is to assert right, Bradley says—as if the two things were counterpoised, one able to cancel the other. It reminds us of the balance held by the figure of Justice, and of debts and credits in accounts. Paying a debt erases it; the debt no longer exists. In a similar way punishment is supposed to erase wrong. (shrink)

Enduring intolerable suffering, an essential eligibility criterion in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada and elsewhere, is a contradiction in terms, in that suffering must be tolerable to be endured. Cases of people who were approved for MAiD but who elected to die naturally, thus tolerating their suffering, bear out the unreliability of this central safeguard. The clinical assessment of intolerable suffering may be strengthened by adopting a definition of intolerable suffering centred on clinically evidenced physical and psychological decompensation. (...) This argument also raises important questions about the risks of MAiD clinicians subjectively defining, approving and providing MAiD in ways that deviate from accepted legal and clinical concepts and ethics. Examples show some prolific clinicians describe MAiD in terminology that differs from such norms, as a personal mission, as personally pleasurable, and as a rights-based service. These alternative views are explored for their risks in assessing and providing MAiD for intolerable suffering. This further demonstrates the need for conceptual clarity in legislation, improved vetting and monitoring of clinicians, and a different assessment process to protect patients and clinicians. (shrink)

Sollen und Sein klaffen bei uns weiter auseinander als bei anderen, weil eben das Sollen sehr hoch gesetzt ist. Thomas Mann, Doctor Faustus.

Moral abolitionists claim that morality ought to be abolished. According to one of their most prominent arguments, this is because making moral judgments renders people significantly less tolerant toward anyone who holds divergent views. In this paper we investigate the hypothesis that morality’s tolerance-decreasing effect only occurs if people are realists about moral issues, i.e., they interpret these issues as objectively grounded. We found support for this hypothesis (Studies 1 and 2). Yet, it also turned out that the intolerance (...) associated with realism is mediated by moral conviction and perceived consensus. People tend to feel more strongly about those moral issues they ground objectively and, in doing so, are more prone to display the vice of moral smugness toward those who disagree with them. The remedy for this that has been recommended is humility which we found (Study 3) is indeed related to reduced intolerance, in part by predicting a reduction in realism, but also in part through a direct connection to intolerance. These results put pressure on abolitionists’ “argument from intolerance.”. (shrink)

Graham Priest has influentially claimed that the Sorites paradox is an Inclosure paradox, concluding that his favored dialetheic solution to the Inclosure paradoxes should be extended to the Sorites paradox. We argue that, given Priest’s dialetheic solution to the Sorites paradox, the argument purporting to show that that paradox is an Inclosure is unsound, and discuss some issues surrounding this fact.

This paper tests the extent of Spinoza’s liberalism through examining the question whether he would tolerate atheists. The first section analyzes the meaning of atheism through the epistolary exchange with Lambert van Velthuysen. It argues that it makes a difference whether Spinoza is an atheist in the strict sense—someone who explicitly denies the existence of God—or a deist—someone who holds a view of unorthodox God. Spinoza denies the charge that his idea of God undermines morality and he also defends his (...) claim that other monotheistic religions than Christianity might contain a kernel of truth. In the second section, the paper discusses Spinoza’s views on toleration. It argues that the state has a limited interest in regulating religious views and it does this through the “dogmas of universal faith.” The state should tolerate a variety of beliefs about God, including those labeled deist, but strict atheistic beliefs, however, are not to be tolerated. In the third section the paper discusses the challenge of the “virtuous atheist” and compares Spinoza’s views to those of Locke and Bayle. Not only Spinoza’s metaphysics but also his ethical project depends on the proper idea of God. Spinoza explicitly contrasts his view, based on a deist conception of God, with that of Hobbes. He reads Hobbes as an epicurean and an atheist. Spinoza’s critical description of Hobbes’s view helps us understand what he thought atheism was and why he was not very sympathetic to it. Spinoza is intolerant towards atheism because it leads to an immoral life and justifies an absolutist state. (shrink)

Sollen und Sein klaffen bei uns weiter auseinander als bei anderen, weil eben das Sollen sehr hoch gesetzt ist.Thomas Mann, Doctor Faustus.

The religious beliefs of the creators of Pakistan and their ideology of an Islamic nation were completely different to how this country is right now. This study is designed to help understand the concept of extremism and religious intolerance one of the most sensitive issues to the security of Pakistan. Unfortunately this extremism has destroyed the global image of not only Pakistan but all the Muslims around the world. This paper tells about the genesis and the origin of extremism, (...) different effects of extremism and in the end it also gives measures to improve the current situation of the country. (shrink)

I am from eternity to eternity: God in Kant's early thought -- Whence then am I?: God in Kant's later thought -- Kant's only unsolvable metaphysical difficulty: created freedom -- Creating freedom: Kant's theological solution -- Interpreting Kant: three objections -- The dancer and the dance: divine action, human freedom -- Becoming divine: autonomy and the beatific vision.

The building and maintaining of a tolerant society requires both a general policy of toleration on the behalf of the state, as well as a minimal number of acts of intolerance by individual citizens towards their fellow citizens. It is this second area of citizen‐citizen relations that is of most interest for education policy. There are those who argue that the best way to achieve a tolerant society is by encouraging, or even requiring, the respect and appreciation of difference (...) amongst a citizenry. In this paper I argue that using education to encourage the respect and appreciation of difference is deeply problematic for both adults and children. I argue that it is a poor servant of those whose differences it is meant to protect, and crucially that it cannot be justified on the key liberal premise of protecting the freedom of individuals to live their (non‐harming) lives as they see fit. I conclude by putting forward the educational alternative of respecting the basic rights of citizens irrespective of your view of their differences. (shrink)

ABSTRACT A growing body of research suggests that political polarization in the United States is at a forty-year high, and that it is rooted less in disagreements over policy than in hostile attitudes toward political opponents. Such attitudes explain the manifest increase of intolerant behavior in American culture and politics in recent years. But what explains the attitudes themselves? One significant contributor may have been the rise of scientism in the early twentieth century, which undermined the metaphysical, epistemic, and institutional (...) foundations of the type of morality required to transcend our instinctual tribalism. (shrink)

스피노자는 관용의 철학자인가? 이 글은 관용을 옹호하는 스피노자의 논증에 애매함이 있으며, 이 애매함을 자유주의의 규범적 입장 대신 순전한 역관계를 논거로 삼는 그의 현실주의를 통해 해명하고자 한다. 『신학-정치론』에서 그는 권리란 곧 욕망과 역량이 미치는 만큼이라는 독특한 자연권 개념을 바탕으로 근대 여느 철학자보다 급진적으로 의견의 자유를 옹호한다. 그러나 그는 종교권력의 정치권력에 대한 종속은 물론, 의견의 자유 역시 심각하게 제한할 여지를 둔다. 그에게 문제의 핵심은 정치권력보다는 종교분파의 불관용, 궁극에는 정서모방의 파괴적 효과로서, 자신과는 다른 기질의 인간을 참지 못하는 대중의 불관용이기 때문이다. 그럼에도 결국 그는 (...) 홉스와 같은 절대주의적 해결책이 아니라 자유를 옹호하는데, 그 이유 역시 정서 법칙을 통해 해명된다. 곧 정치적-법적 불관용은 대중의 불관용에 대한 수동적 반응에 불과하며, 대중의 불관용을 낳는 인간 본성의 법칙, 곧 코나투스와 정서 모방 자체에 의해 더 해로운 결과를 불러온다는 것이다. 이처럼 역관계를 고려한 관용의 정당화 논변은 오늘날 ‘혐오주의’와 같은 대중의 악덕에 대한 직접적인 법적 대응의 위험을 시사해준다. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan presented a paradigm of the social contract that has proven foundational in Western political thought. A proper understanding of the philosopher’s thought is thus of paramount importance. I argue that today’s case for a religiously tolerant Hobbes has missed an important part of the historical record. I first consider an obscure but important document, the second edition of the Humble Proposals. It demonstrates that leading members of a seventeenth century Christian denomination, the Independents, considered a state-enforced (...) confession of faith. Independents are generally seen as tolerant, and one of the arguments for Hobbesian toleration is that Hobbes endorsed them. But the second edition of the Humble Proposals aligns with the possibility in Hobbes that the civil sovereign will impose part III of Leviathan on the Universities and treat its contents as a legally required confession of faith – one that may be necessary for security, and the avoidance of civil war. Hobbes’s endorsement of Independency alone cannot be used to argue that his work leads to religious toleration. The evidence I present reinforces an earlier assessment and alongside other evidence points to the return of the intolerant Hobbes. (shrink)

As philosophers such as Fendler, Bauman and Young have shown, the concept of community poses significant challenges for diversity by reinforcing similarity, necessarily bracketing that which is viewed as outside, other or strange. In this paper, I interrogate the concept of community as it applies to Québec's intercultural context. I explore how intercultural dialogue, a mechanism to promote intercultural community building has, through a number of public displays of xenophobia, reinforced a discourse of intolerance in Québec's public sphere. Québec's (...) Geography, History, and Citizenship education course is aimed at creating an intercultural ‘micro-society’ in which students practice the demands of intercultural citizenship, such as dialogue. As a curricular requirement, intercultural dialogue places educators with the responsibility of perpetuating an intolerant discourse of difference. (shrink)