Assess A Liberal Difference Of Toleration And Pluralism Analysis

Outline a liberal difference of toleration and pluralism [15]
Toleration refers to a particular form of inaction, it is based on moral reasoning and a specific set of circumstances. Tolerance refers to a particular form of inaction, based on moral reasoning and a specific set of circumstances. In particular, toleration must be distinguished from permissiveness, blind indifference and willing indulgence. For example, a passer-by who chooses not to interfere to apprehend a mugger, or a parent who simply ignores the unruly behaviour of his or her children, cannot be said to be exhibiting ‘tolerance’. Pluralism, in its broadest sense, is a belief in or commitment to diversity or multiplicity, the existence of many things. As a descriptive term,
pluralism may denote the existence of party competition (political pluralism), a multiplicity of ethical values (moral or value pluralism), a variety of cultural beliefs (cultural pluralism) and so on. As a normative term, it suggests that diversity is healthy and desirable, usually because it safeguards individual liberty and promotes debate, argument and understanding. More narrowly, the term pluralism is used as a theory of the distribution of political power. As such, it holds that power is widely and evenly dispersed in society, not concentrated in the hands of an elite or ruling class.
Liberals believe that to be tolerant, a person must be willing to accept another person’s view without having to agree with such view, and there is a limit to what is accepted.
For instance, with religious views other religions may tolerate each other up to some degree, however if it goes over a certain limit, it is no longer tolerated. Such as, if Catholics were to want to enforce Christianity in to every other religion, the other religions would not tolerate this, and vice versa. On the other hand, Pluralism is a view that suggests a commitment to diversity and multiplicity, it is entirely different from Toleration, this is because pluralism suggests the co-existence of many different views, and that many views exist. Whereas toleration is a view that although there may be many opposing views, my view is right, I accept the others have other views but that does not mean they’re correct. Thus implying that the tolerant person accepts other views but does not necessarily approve of them, there is a boundary the opposing view must not cross. For instance, one may accept that a gay couples exist, but that does not mean they want to live next door to them, or see them having relations in a train. There is a boundary to toleration. A great political example is the way the US wanted to enforce democracy on countries of the Middle East is something Middle East countries did not necessarily desire. The US wanted to make countries in the Middle East democratic. However, the US
shouldn’t interfere with other countries’ affairs as they are free to do what they wish. By forcing their views on other countries one is trampling on the others freedom which is something one mustn’t do.
Pluralism is like a neutral point where every view is accepted with no argument, every view exists with each other and competes with each other, but doesn’t necessarily for the right to be right, but for the right to be recognised as a different view.
Liberalism is not, and can never be, a philosophy of ‘do your own thing’. While liberalism undoubtedly favours openness, debate and self-determination, it is also characterised by a powerful moral thrust. Rawls, for example, recognised this arguing that differences within society had to take place within an ‘overlapping consensus’, on what citizens can agree despite the other matters that divided them. At the heart of this consensus are the values of autonomy, freedom and equality, values that Rawls believed it was ‘unreasonable’ to challenge or reject. The same applies to Berlin, who remained a liberal to the extent that he believed that it is only within a society that respects individual liberty can value pluralism be contained. However, one of the problems with his work was that he failed to demonstrate how liberal and illiberal beliefs can co-exist harmoniously within the same
society.
The simple fact is that once liberalism accepts value pluralism, it is difficult to contain it within a liberal framework. This is where liberalism and pluralism depart. For liberals, diversity is endorsed but only when it is construed within a framework of toleration and personal autonomy. Pluralists, on the other hand, refuse to ‘absolutize’ liberalism, according liberal and illiberal ideas equal status. John Gray therefore argued that pluralism implies a ‘post-liberal’ stance, in which liberal values, institutions and regimes are no longer seen to enjoy a monopoly of legitimacy. Liberalism is thus ‘relativized’. Not only do liberalism and pluralism offer different approaches to diversity, but the rivalry between them has become one of the central ideological battlegrounds in modern societies.