Toleration can best be understood (and is similarly defined by others) as not using force or advocating the use of force against those who hold ideas and beliefs or who engage in practices that one thinks are wrong but which do not violate the person, property, or liberty of others. This classical liberal type of toleration shows proper respect for people as reasoning beings able to reach their own conclusions about the nature of the world and the most appropriate way to live and organize their lives. Recognition of another person’s right to his own thoughts and beliefs is also an essential foundation of civil discourse.
Why must I respect something in that deeper way if I think it is wrong? For example, why should the heterosexual “respect” someone who flaunts their homosexual identity? Why should the pro-lifer “respect” the abortion provider? Hate the sin, love the sinner? Sure. But “progressives” either seem to want more or is just making an argument for the old-style toleration as applied to his/her cherished views like religion while asking that people also be less “judgy” about those who share his/her preferences.
The problem with demanding something more than toleration — i.e., acceptance — for all is that acceptance is, by nature, partial. It cannot be universal. One cannot simultaneously accept the God denier and the God believer as equally correct. But toleration can and must be universal: if I demand, on the grounds of our common humanity, non-interference from those who disagree with me, I can and must do them the same justice.
So that we do not unwittingly go down the path of soft relativism or the tyranny of political correctness, it is important to recognize that toleration does not mean that we must be indifferent to, respect in a deep way, or be compelled to accept any belief or practice. In a free society, the sphere of ethical and scientific debate should be quite broad as people wrestle with questions about the proper way to live and the nature of justice. This means that — like goods and services in the economic marketplace — ideas and practices have to compete and be subject to robust criticism. If we have the confidence of our convictions, we should be open to vigorous challenge about the best ways of living consistent with our individual and societal flourishing. And we should be able to challenge others as we grope together towards truth.
Without the institution of toleration, societies will slip into ignorance or the tyranny of unthinking acceptance.
If a person feels that an action is morally wrong, then by the virtue of “acceptance”, they would be forced to ignore their conscious and believe that it is morally justified. The implication, then, is that people would be forced the let the general consensus of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable drive their own individual conscious of what is right and wrong.
By the virtue of tolerance, on the other hand, no one is obligated to believe an action is necessarily right or wrong. Rather, they are encouraged to look at issues with an objective attitude and the aim of looking for what ought to be. In the well-known words of Aristotle, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Simply put, you cannot accept something without tolerating it, but you can tolerate something without accepting it.
No one, not even society, should be able to have control over another individual’s conscious. The free exercise of conscious is essential towards preserving one’s moral integrity. It is the innate ability to feel and give weight to the moral emotions. It is the “common sense” at the heart of common sense moral philosophy. The fact that a general consensus towards an action can drive an individual’s conscious not only signifies a movement towards authoritarianism, but it also signifies movement towards social moral depravity. We need to stop forcing people to be accepting of one another and their actions and start encouraging people to tolerate one another. Whether or not someone is willing to accept something is up to their own conscious. America was built on the notion of freedom of thought and personal liberties. While forced acceptance is a violation of this ideal, tolerance is integral towards preserving it.