What do you think?
Rate this book
Key Concepts (Polity)
Toleration
In this engaging and comprehensive introduction to the topic of toleration, Andrew Jason Cohen seeks to answer fundamental questions, such What is toleration? What should be tolerated? Why is toleration important?
Beginning with some key insights into what we mean by toleration, Cohen goes on to investigate what should be tolerated and why. We should not be free to do everythingÑmurder, rape, and theft, for clear examples, should not be tolerated. But should we be free to take drugs, hire a prostitute, or kill ourselves? Should our governments outlaw such activities or tolerate them? Should they tolerate “outsourcing” of jobs or importing of goods or put embargos on other countries? Cohen examines these difficult questions, among others, and argues that we should look to principles of toleration to guide our answers. These principles tell us when limiting freedom is acceptableÑthat is, they indicate the proper limits of toleration. Cohen deftly explains the main principles on offer and indicates why one of these stands out from the rest.
This wide-ranging new book on an important topic will be essential reading for students taking courses in philosophy, political science and religious studies.
Beginning with some key insights into what we mean by toleration, Cohen goes on to investigate what should be tolerated and why. We should not be free to do everythingÑmurder, rape, and theft, for clear examples, should not be tolerated. But should we be free to take drugs, hire a prostitute, or kill ourselves? Should our governments outlaw such activities or tolerate them? Should they tolerate “outsourcing” of jobs or importing of goods or put embargos on other countries? Cohen examines these difficult questions, among others, and argues that we should look to principles of toleration to guide our answers. These principles tell us when limiting freedom is acceptableÑthat is, they indicate the proper limits of toleration. Cohen deftly explains the main principles on offer and indicates why one of these stands out from the rest.
This wide-ranging new book on an important topic will be essential reading for students taking courses in philosophy, political science and religious studies.
- GenresPhilosophy
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 14, 2015
Cohen makes a clear distinction between multiculturalism and tolerance, and furthermore rescues the concept of toleration from the vague virtue it is today. Multiculturalism is the belief that a society should celebrate any cultural differences--plainly, no moral values are more praiseworthy than any other. He points out the contradiction latent in this relativism. He also identifies 3 criteria for something to be genuine toleration. You'll have to read to find out. He essentially connects tolerance to the "harm principle". He makes the case for tolerance which avoids the relativism of multiculturalism while offering a framework which truly respects the autonomy of rational beings. Although couched in the the classical liberal tradition, Cohen may bother the staunchest non-interventionist.
He is not as stuffy as most philosophers, but characteristically addends his sentences with numerous qualifiers to be certain the boundaries of his arguments are properly constrained. Cohen uses the "harm principle" and its related principles to create a rather comprehensive political philosophy--a very convincing one.
He addresses the challenges of children--the greatest area of challenge for political philosophy--as well as the paradoxes of toleration in modern liberalism.
If one isn't convinced that toleration is a praiseworthy value in and of itself, Cohen dedicates an entire chapter to dependent values--defending that toleration should be sought after because of a handful of other desirable outcomes and societal goals. For example, "toleration is thus instrumentally valuable as a means to justification and knowledge." Without toleration, the advancement of truth and human progress would be stalled.
Cohen uses playful examples to draw up his thought experiments, and returns to these same examples throughout the book.
While i think fewer things in the world are less objective or settled than Cohen claims, I agree with most of his treatment. This book has great relevancy regarding international relations, the role of government, the nature of knowledge, cultural studies, gender studies, interracial studies, and community building (even parenting).
He is not as stuffy as most philosophers, but characteristically addends his sentences with numerous qualifiers to be certain the boundaries of his arguments are properly constrained. Cohen uses the "harm principle" and its related principles to create a rather comprehensive political philosophy--a very convincing one.
He addresses the challenges of children--the greatest area of challenge for political philosophy--as well as the paradoxes of toleration in modern liberalism.
If one isn't convinced that toleration is a praiseworthy value in and of itself, Cohen dedicates an entire chapter to dependent values--defending that toleration should be sought after because of a handful of other desirable outcomes and societal goals. For example, "toleration is thus instrumentally valuable as a means to justification and knowledge." Without toleration, the advancement of truth and human progress would be stalled.
Cohen uses playful examples to draw up his thought experiments, and returns to these same examples throughout the book.
While i think fewer things in the world are less objective or settled than Cohen claims, I agree with most of his treatment. This book has great relevancy regarding international relations, the role of government, the nature of knowledge, cultural studies, gender studies, interracial studies, and community building (even parenting).
February 25, 2016
Andrew J. Cohen’s Toleration starts with the “aim to provide a clear and lively introduction to the issues surrounding toleration” (1). He successfully, in my view, achieves this aim. He grounds the concept of toleration historically in the history of western liberalism. Then, after a theoretical interlude, he presents several different principles that (might) ground and guide toleration. The most important of these is the Harm Principle. Cohen’s account of toleration, unsurprisingly, is rooted largely (and rightly in my view) in Mill’s On Liberty. He closes with an analysis of the general value and good of toleration. All in all, it is clear and it is lively; it is written, for the most part, in a direct and accessible way. So much so that this would make a great text for an introduction to political philosophy class.
I say “for the most part” above because there were a few sections that got bogged down in a bit. First, the theoretical section of chapter 2 seems to play more to a particular trend in professional political philosophy. The value of this chapter in relation to the rest of book was unclear to me. Second, Cohen’s discusses an argument for basing toleration on a principle of benefiting others (4B). This was the one section of the book I found hard to follow; the argument here being opaque. This might be much more to do with the difficulty of trying to articulate a view that is itself unclear than to a deficiency on Cohen’s part.
Cohen is careful to distinguish toleration from relativism, subjectivism, or non-judgmentalism. In fact, Cohen intends his view to be universal and it is based on a kind of objective morality. Moreover, the very idea or need for toleration depends on the prior fact of having judged someone (or his or her actions) to be objectionable.
The focus of the concept of toleration Cohen discusses is on non-interference. That is, we tolerate when have a principled reason for not interfering with someone else that we find in some way objectionable. This leaves open a question of whether or not toleration governs our interaction with others when it is not a matter of interference. That is, Shannon thinks that her co-worker Avi’s views about the treatment of animals to be deeply immoral. Assuming there is no issue of Shannon interfering with Avi, does toleration speak to how she might interact with Avi? Is she wrong to shun him? To refuse to participate in committees at work that Avi is a part of? I suspect Cohen’s answer on this front is that if it doesn’t involve a question of interfering with Avi, then it is a different kind of moral question than the one with which he is dealing. That seems right in a way, but at the same time, it makes sense to speak of Shannon not tolerating Avi.
Although relatively short (156 pp), Cohen’s book covers a lot of ground. It is a useful book for those interested in understand better the concept of toleration, its justification, its value, and its limits.
(Disclaimer of a sort: I organized and will be chairing an Author Meets Critics session for Cohen’s book at the 2016 Central APA meeting in Chicago, IL. More here: http://aapss.info/2016/02/24/toleration-2016-central-division-apa/)
I say “for the most part” above because there were a few sections that got bogged down in a bit. First, the theoretical section of chapter 2 seems to play more to a particular trend in professional political philosophy. The value of this chapter in relation to the rest of book was unclear to me. Second, Cohen’s discusses an argument for basing toleration on a principle of benefiting others (4B). This was the one section of the book I found hard to follow; the argument here being opaque. This might be much more to do with the difficulty of trying to articulate a view that is itself unclear than to a deficiency on Cohen’s part.
Cohen is careful to distinguish toleration from relativism, subjectivism, or non-judgmentalism. In fact, Cohen intends his view to be universal and it is based on a kind of objective morality. Moreover, the very idea or need for toleration depends on the prior fact of having judged someone (or his or her actions) to be objectionable.
The focus of the concept of toleration Cohen discusses is on non-interference. That is, we tolerate when have a principled reason for not interfering with someone else that we find in some way objectionable. This leaves open a question of whether or not toleration governs our interaction with others when it is not a matter of interference. That is, Shannon thinks that her co-worker Avi’s views about the treatment of animals to be deeply immoral. Assuming there is no issue of Shannon interfering with Avi, does toleration speak to how she might interact with Avi? Is she wrong to shun him? To refuse to participate in committees at work that Avi is a part of? I suspect Cohen’s answer on this front is that if it doesn’t involve a question of interfering with Avi, then it is a different kind of moral question than the one with which he is dealing. That seems right in a way, but at the same time, it makes sense to speak of Shannon not tolerating Avi.
Although relatively short (156 pp), Cohen’s book covers a lot of ground. It is a useful book for those interested in understand better the concept of toleration, its justification, its value, and its limits.
(Disclaimer of a sort: I organized and will be chairing an Author Meets Critics session for Cohen’s book at the 2016 Central APA meeting in Chicago, IL. More here: http://aapss.info/2016/02/24/toleration-2016-central-division-apa/)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews