Verdade, tolerância e relativismo

Is Tolerance a Virtue? Por Donald DeMarco.

The great Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain has stated that “the man who says: ‘What is truth?’ as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race.” ### There is genuine tolerance, he goes on to say, when a person is convinced of a truth, but at the same time recognizes the right of others who deny this truth to speak their own mind. Such tolerance is respectful of other people and recognizes that they seek truth in their own way and may one day discover the truth they presently contradict, given their natural intellectual capabilities that are ordered to truth.

The person who is genuinely tolerant does not turn his back on truth, as did Pilate, nor does he disparage others for not having already found it. He retains his commitment to truth and respect for others as he lives in the hope that they, in their own individual way, will finally come to honor the truth that, for whatever reason, has eluded them.

(...)

The distinction between pseudotolerance and genuine tolerance is critical because the former is often mistaken for the latter. This mistake leads to a radical devaluation of the importance of truth, especially truth of a moral nature. Consequently, a person may be accused of being “intolerant” simply because he holds to a truth, such as the iniquity of abortion or the disordered nature of homosexual acts.

When pseudo-tolerance, severed from any relationship with truth, reigns supreme, it is elevated to the exalted, if unwarranted, stature of being a first principle. Therefore, people will say, “Who knows what is true or false, right and wrong? Let us all be tolerant.” Nonetheless, as is only too evident in the world today, these disciples of Pontius Pilate can be utterly intolerant of anyone who takes a position that is anchored in truth. Pro-choice people, whose position is based on nothing but choice itself, are not tolerant of pro-life people whose position is based on the intrinsic value of all human beings.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the limitations of tolerance, even in its most genuine form. Tolerance is a secondary phenomenon. It is a response to something that preceded it. People often ignore what initially transpired and urge others to be tolerant of it. Yet, it is critical to understand the moral nature of what took place first. It is preposterous, in the true sense of the word (prae + posterius = putting “before” that which should come “after”), to make tolerance a first principle and demote the initial action to a place of secondary importance.

(...)

Tolerance, of itself, is not a virtue. Pseudo-tolerance that is founded on ignorance, cowardice, or apathy is actually a vice. In order for tolerance to avoid being a vice, it must be founded on a positive regard for truth and an abiding love for others. Genuine tolerance owes its genuineness to its association with virtue (especially love, prudence, and courage). But as mere “tolerance,” it is too broad and acontextual a notion to be classified as a virtue.

Presently, we hear equally loud voices proclaiming the need for both complete tolerance and zero tolerance. The secular position on tolerance is simply incoherent. Society is currently reeling from “tolerance confusion” (an essentially intolerable state) because it continues to ignore the fundamental question of truth. The first question we should ask is not “How can I be more tolerant?” but “How can I come to know the truth?”

(via O Pasquim da Reacção)