Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Henk ten Have

Tolerance

  • M. Patrão Neves
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_419-1

Abstract

Retrieving the etymological meaning of the word “tolerance,” accompanying the evolution of the concept along its history, and exploring some of its major current uses and their impact in common morality and within bioethics, this article proposes to make clear and accurately define the legitimate usage of the term “tolerance.”

“Tolerance” started to be advocated in the wake of the rejection of moral absolutism and gained importance in an increasingly pluralistic world. But its growing hegemony in the moral debate leads dangerously to a moral indifferentism, which subsequently leads to the suppression of morality itself. The issue of the limits of tolerance becomes unavoidable.

In this context, the moral status of tolerance is also examined, being challenged as an ideal, and as a value, and being redefined as a virtue.

This reflection will unfold at the level of philosophical clarification of “tolerance,” the common morality perception of it, and its impact on bioethical theory and practice.

Keywords

Moral absolutism Moral indifferentism Pluralism Value Virtue John Locke John Stuart Mill Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1991). Bioethics and secular humanism. The search for a common morality. London/Philadelphia: SCM Press/Trinity Press International.Google Scholar
  2. Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1996). The foundations of bioethics (2nd ed.). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Locke, J. (1689). A letter on tolerance. http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
  4. Mill, J. S. (1859). On toleration. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/jsmill/liberty.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
  5. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ricoeur, P. (Ed.) (1997). Tolerance between intolerance and the intolerable. New York: Berghan Books.Google Scholar
  7. Scanlon, T. (1996). The difficulty of tolerance. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Toleration. An elusive virtue (pp. 226–239). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Walzer, M. (1997). On toleration. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Williams, B. (1996). Toleration: An impossible virtue? In D. Heyd (Ed.), Toleration. An elusive virtue (pp. 18–27). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Further Readings

  1. Forst, R. (2007). Toleration. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2012 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/toleration/. Accessed 1 Oct 2014.
  2. Heyd, D. (Ed.). (1996). Toleration, an elusive virtue. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Mendus, S., & Edwards, D. (Eds.). (1987). On toleration. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  4. Rawls, J. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1987), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Raz, J. (1988). Autonomy, toleration, and the harm principle. In S. Mendds (Ed.), Justifying toleration. Conceptual and historical perspectives (pp. 155–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ricoeur, P. (1988). Tolérance, intolérance, intolérable. Bulletin de La Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, 134(2), 435–450. Avril-Juin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioethics Research Centre, Bioethics InstituteCatholic University of PortugalPortoPortugal