Describe and Illustrate two criticisms of the view that pragmatism justifies

toleration.

The argument (by Locke) that suggests that stability is in the interest of the ruler.
It states that:

P1. Intolerance in a society leads to oppression.

P2. Oppression leads to general upset.
P3. General upset leads to instability.

And instability leads to rulers being overthrown, overpowered, or at least making their
job a lot harder than it would otherwise be.

However, there are at least two flaws in this argument.

The first is that in stability can actually be good in certain situations. For example,
disruptive pupils at a school are generally recognised as a bad thing – they make life
harder for the leader (the headteacher in this case) and they distract other pupils and
just create instability as a whole. However, at a time when there are very few jobs
around, having children such as this means that extra jobs are created in school for
pastoral staff to come and specialise in dealing with them.

In the same argument, an ongoing conflict, or clash of personalities such as that

between the Mods and the Rockers can be a benefit to the state too.
This is because although it may seem that all they do it create turmoil and drama where
there needn’t be any, in fact, when people can unite against a common enemy, it
distracts them from focusing on the flaws in the government, and means the ruler is in
no jeopardy of causing upset to anyone.
Oppressing a minority creates unity in the majority.

The criticism is that intolerance is sometimes much more beneficial than tolerance would
ever be.
In the instance of murderers, being intolerant of their crimes enforces essential
boundaries in society and also creates a sense of fear for those potential criminals who
do not want to suffer the consequences. Maintaining justice in society, whether it is
through tolerance OR intolerance, creates stability, and is good for the ruler.