Tolerance and "The Right To Be Wrong"

Here are some initial thoughts on a topic that has been of interest for a while:

The problem with tolerance is that it is too often confused with approval. But that is not what tolerance is or means, and by confusing tolerance with approval, one gets two things wrong. First, one establishes too narrow of a scope for tolerance. Second, one raises the stakes on tolerance too high

Tolerance is not the "right to do" a certain thing. Rather, tolerance should be viewed as allowing other people "the right to be wrong." This is important distinction. What it means is that we do not have to approve or accept or agree with what is being done to be tolerant of it. We can know with absolute certainty that what somebody is doing is wrong and still allow them to do it, to be tolerant of what they are doing, because they have the right to be wrong.*

We tolerate people doing what they want not because they might be right or because we do not know what is right or what produces the best results. We tolerate what a person does or thinks, even though we know for a 100% certainty they are wrong, because each person has the right to be wrong. It is not because a particular view or act might be right in the future or better in the long run that we tolerate it. We tolerate it, we allow a person to do it, because each person has have the right to be wrong.

Viewed this way, being tolerant becomes much easier. If tolerance does not mean acceptance or approval, then it is easier to be tolerant. I can tolerate something even though I know it is wrong because people have the right to be wrong. It is much harder to be tolerant if tolerance is based on the possibility that what somebody is doing might be right. If that is the basis for tolerance, then an act can be prohibited, in fact, it should be prohibited, if a majority is 100% sure it is wrong.

If only things that might be right or which cannot be proved wrong are tolerated, then the fact something is tolerated means it might be right. That is a problem because it means the mere act of tolerating something becomes an acceptance of the possibility that it might be right. And it is not a very large step from that to saying tolerance means something is right.

This is where the problem comes in. If toleration means something is right, or at least not wrong, then we have raised the stakes on toleration because if somebody really believes something is wrong, then they cannot tolerate it.

On the other hand, if one has the right to be wrong, then tolerance only means accepting that a person has the right to be wrong. When tolerance does not mean or imply approval or even the possibility of approval, then tolerance becomes easier, and people can more easily tolerate what other people do or think, because, after all, they have the right to be wrong.

----------------------

* Obviously, the right to be wrong does not include the right to harm other people or interfere with the rights of other people. Rights do not extend that far, but even the idea of "not harming other people" must be narrowly drawn or the exception becomes the rule, and we are right back where we started.