The False Virtue of Tolerance
[Writer’s Note: This was originally posted on my website on 3/18/2019. There is a full podcast in video and audio format covering this article.]
The Left calls it “progressive tolerance.” The Right calls it “compassionate conservatism.” Both sides use a common false virtue to show the other side or their constituents how much they care, but is it truly virtuous to give ground to all ideas no matter the outcome? Is it truly moral to shut down honest debate centered around different ideologies just to be tolerant? Is “tolerance” a virtue worth keeping?
The Oxford Dictionary defines virtue as a, “behavior showing high moral standards.” The same source defines tolerance as, “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with.” Now that the definitions are clear, the meaning of each word can be compared using the same context.
To be tolerant is to listen to ideas or observe actions without dismissing, judging, or interfering with those ideas or actions. Put into those terms, it seems like tolerance, at least in some cases, is not always good or the right thing to do. When my kids act out of line, I do not tolerant their behavior because there is a high probability they will repeat that behavior in the same or worse circumstances in the future. To make the idea of tolerance virtuous can and will result in repetitive bad behavior.
People who advocate for tolerance as if it were a virtue do it on non-judgmental grounds. Even the Bible is filled with versus on why one should not judge another. For example, the book of Matthew reads, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. ‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1–5 New International Version) This verse, and many other versus that speak of judgement in the Bible, speak to not judging someone without first evaluating yourself. If you judge someone for a sin that you fall short of yourself, then you will be judged as harshly as you have judged others.
Popular clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson eluded to this judgement concept found in the Bible in his best-selling book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. The sixth rule is, “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.” This rule is often dismissed by his critics as the “remember to clean your room because every parent tells their child so why pay for an overpriced book to tell you so” rule. The rule goes much deeper than cleaning your house. Doing something like setting your life in order builds an intuitive impulse to detect things that are out of order. It is similar to practicing a jump shot in basketball to build muscle memory so you do not have to think as much about the mechanics when trying to score on a jumper. The point is not to dismiss the impulse of criticism, but to use it as a mechanism for moral change. Making tolerance a virtue works directly against that impulse.
Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt also expands on this intuitive sense in his book The Righteous Mind. Haidt explains the difference between reason and intuition. If you imagine a man riding on the back of an elephant, and that man gives the elephant direction. That is your reason (the rider) directing your intuition (the elephant). Reason is important because it directs your intuitive senses in a specific direction, but what happens when the elephant sees a predator? Ultimately, the elephant is going to go where it wants to go and the man is just there for the ride. This sounds like the elephant, or intuition, is acting reckless, but what if the rider doesn’t see the predator until it’s too late? Intuition is important, even more important than reason according to Haidt, and is often used as a moral indicator passed down biologically or through repetitive experience. This is not to say intuition always leads to moral behavior, take tribalism as an example, but it is a better truth finding tool than reason. Reason is not a good truth finding tool, but it is a great justification tool. I say all of this to conclude that tolerance is often pushed by reasoning to justify a narrative people want to believe rather than knowing intuitively if something is moral or immoral.
I think it is very clear that tolerance has no inherently morality. It is a reasoning tool that can be used to forward a narrative. That narrative can be used to create change that will end in a better, kinder society, or will allow bad ideas to flourish when they should fall under the weight of their own immorality. Even though I explained in the opening paragraph that this false virtue is used on both sides of the political divide, it is inherently more common on the Left than the Right.
Jonathan Haidt goes on to explain in his book, The Righteous Mind, that you can predict with reasonable accuracy if someone is going to grow up and be politically Left or Right. People who are on the Left tend to be more risk seeking, and people on the Right tend to be cautious around change. This innate genetic factor doesn’t mean people are predestined to be on one political side of the spectrum than the other. Haidt writes about a theory by psychologist Dan McAdams. McAdams talks about different levels in our personality that effect our moral outlook. The lowest level being “disposable traits,” which McAdams describes as, “broad dimensions of personality that show themselves in many different situations and are fairly consistent from childhood through old age.” This describes the innate genetic component that is further shaped by the higher levels of personality. The second level is “characteristic adaptations,” or “traits that emerge as we grow.” The highest level is “life narratives,” which is the story we tell ourselves about or lives. These factors are what creates an ideological and behavioral divide between the Left and Right, and these factors explain why we do not view tolerance the same way. The more open you are to life experience, the more likely you are to tolerate different behaviors regardless of morality.
After reviewing all the evidence above, it is easy to conclude that tolerance cannot be considered a virtue because it has no inherent morality. We, as a society, must understand in what circumstances tolerance plays a moral role. It is just as wrong to use tolerance inappropriately as it is to never tolerate anything at all. It is clear, the only idea we must tolerate is the open debate and conversation so the best ideas can come out into the light.
“There is a thought that stops all thought, and that is the only thought that ought to be stopped.” — G.K. Chesterton
P.S. If you are still reading, and I hope you are, I will be republishing my writing from my website on Medium so there may be some older stories I cover, although I do not often cover current events. I shut down my website because I have changed my main resource of communication and content hosting to Locals.com. Although I will be publishing my long-form written content on Medium, you can find my more regular content, podcasts, and interactive community at engineeringpolitics.locals.com. Please feel free to join this growing community if you want to stay up to date and/or support this content. Thank you for your consideration!
Note: None of the persons, podcasts, or books referenced above reflect my ideas and personal beliefs, nor should they be held accountable for anything published on this site in the future.
