Exploring the Dynamics and Limits of Tolerance

As Schwartz introduces the topic of tolerance it seems as if he is going to describe an ideal liberal society with complete tolerance, in every form of the word. Then as he continues onto his forth sentence, this idea is disturbed. He states “And we reserve our strongest condemnation for individuals and institutions that are intolerant.” This shows that tolerance has conditions and limits. Therefore, the question “what are the multi-stages of tolerance, and how does one decide what is tolerable and what is not?” is formed.

Schwartz gives us the dictionary definition of the word tolerate; it is to allow what is not actually approved. Then he tells us that the word tolerate has a negative connotation, and this is usually true, one does not have to tolerate something they

Both types of people are treated as equals; both sides have to give up something to gain something. For example, if a Pro-Life group was protesting outside and blocking the doors of an abortion clinic and the Pro-Choice group wanted them to disband. In the spirit of tolerance, the Pro-Life group would stop the protest and the blockade if and only if the Pro-Choice group closed one of it clinic or made regulations that made getting and abortion at their clinics more difficult. This may seem like a reasonable solution on the outside, but if one takes a closer look this they realize that this is next to if not completely impossible. Even if abortion or non-abortionist were not against one’s moral values; it is a profitable business. The people who own the business, the powerful people, will not compromise with some with no power. Even if roles were reverse and the clinic was a nonprofit, there would still be no compromise, because no matter who has control it is still some sort of loss of power. There are no such thing as actual equals, because someone always has it a bit better. Therefore, autonomy will always come into