An Argument In Favor Of Tolerance

 The only argument against tolerance I can think of is the assertion of superiority of one group over all others, that justifies it to mold the rest according to the paradigm. But, to put it abstractly, the fragment cannot become the whole. There are two ways a group may assert its superiority over others. First theoretically through debate and discussion and second through power. These two senses are often mixed. I have seen people assert their superiority over others while at the same time asking others to ban or shut out the people of another group. These two assertions together are incompatible. It is like proclaiming yourself a winner in a race you are running alone. Since most of the times a group of people seek power, they do not seek it because they are superior but they seek it to be superior - that is the raison d'etre of power.

In the face of this we are in a dilemma. The weak who cannot defend themselves against a superior power would be left at the mercy of the superior one who would also justify their use of superior force. If power is justification then are we to accept the justifications of the powerful? Can a particular sect be allowed to define morality and thereby arbitrate what is right and what is wrong? If you think the answer is no then the only reason is that moral laws are universal that apply to every human being irrespective of which sect he belongs to and thereby is binding to all irrespective of their membership to a particular sect. Otherwise the powerful apart from having the power would also have the moral right to trample the weak under their feet.

This concerned the theoretical part. Coming to the practical part even the powerful would think before misusing their power since it is a basic need for them to appear moral. Hence power is in the inherent need to justify itself and cannot be its own justification and thus has to be unleashed under a pretext. These days we are seeing a trend where through various forms of media the opinion of people is being controlled. What people do not realize is this - when one sect acts unjustly towards another they invalidate the laws and principles of justice which thereby loose legitimacy not simply towards people of another group but even within the group itself because if these laws loose legitimacy towards one they loose legitimacy for all which attests to their universal nature. Through refraining from self-restraint towards a weaker group the majority were not simply protecting the minority; they were protecting themselves too. A fragment that tries to become the whole is necessarily on the path of self-destruction. This constitutes a theoretical and practical argument for tolerance and against intolerance. It is morally wrong and practically self-destructive.