In relatively recent debates over toleration, there has developed a view that sa

ys toleration is simply not enough. In tolerating others, we implicitly (and som

etimes explicitly) communicate that what they do or believe is, in our view, mor
ally disreputable. That can have serious effects, of course, on the tolerated s se
nse of self-worth and ability to live her life as she sees fit. Instead of toler
ation, the argument goes, we should instead offer one another mutual respect or
positive regard or, and this is the key move, recognition. We need not morally e
ndorse others lives full stop, but we should go beyond a grudging indifference to
something like a decently warm encouragement. And the reason, broadly speaking,
we must do so is because the goods we thought we could secure via toleration ar
e not enough. They still leave those being tolerated the object of social opprob
rium and thus at some real disadvantage or worse.
Hence, it is not enough for gays and lesbians to achieve a rough degree of legal
and political equality. Nor is it enough for tender college students to hear cr
iticisms that go to the heart of their own sense of identity. Unless their moral
lives are, in some real way, recognized and affirmed not only by public (or uni
versity) authorities and unless their fellow citizens (or students or speakers)
can be counted on to do the same, real, substantive equality will remain elusive
.
But this makes for the obvious question: if recognition, not toleration, is the
rule of the day, why can t moral conservatives or others with unpopular views make
similarly structured claims? Well, in my view, they should be able to and the f
act that they can t helps reveal an incoherence at the heart of the recognition cl
aim. Given a certain range of moral and religious pluralism, it is principally a
nd practically impossible to extend recognition to all or even most, especially
once recognition extends into our everyday social lives. Recognition is, or at l
east can be, a zero-sum game. And so what is lurking behind the purported argume
nt for recognition and toleration, for that matter is a set of moral judgments about
what lives are in fact worth recognizing or tolerating, and here is where the m
isunderstandings of moral conservatives and free-speech liberals will continue t
o lead to loss after loss.
Why Toleration Is Never Enough and Why Moral Conservatives and Free Speech Liber
als Will Keep on Losing | Civitas Peregrina. An important and sobering post by B
ryan McGraw. (via ayjay)