In a society where individuals with distinct beliefs, ethnicities, and ideologies coexist, respecting other people’s right to think and live differently is no longer a virtue but an ethical responsibility. As living, breathing and conscious beings brought together by the universe on a floating rock in an expanding cosmos, we are equally mortal and owe absolutely everything to one another, including the right towards a peaceful existence and the freedom to think and live for oneself.
However, when it comes to tolerance, there is a thin line between ethical responsibility and moral failure, because what one may call tolerance can sometimes be apathy in disguise, or at least a poor justification for it. On the surface, tolerance and indifference may appear similar, so to respect another person’s freedom without being indifferent to their actions, one needs to be able to tell them apart.
For peaceful coexistence, especially in a pluralistic society, one needs to respect that not everyone will share opinions and beliefs similar to one’s own, no matter how logically and morally sound they may seem to oneself. Nevertheless, tolerance does not mean that one must relinquish the right to disagree… this exact right forms the very boundary between tolerance and indifference. Tolerance is acknowledging other people’s right to think and live differently even when one disagrees with them.
The moment it becomes an excuse to ignore others’ actions, tolerance turns into indifference and is thus morally empty, because concern about right vs wrong is no longer followed by the urge to dissent. Tolerance begins with disagreement. Making an effort to regulate the urge to control the ways people think, act, and live differently is tolerance; the absence of this urge might just indicate a lack of concern. If your tolerance asks nothing of you, it might be empty. Accepting everything without questioning it can also slowly morph into indifference. Acknowledging everyone’s right to think and act differently, even when you disagree, is tolerance, but the moment you refuse to care about the consequences of those actions, it becomes indifference.
For example, if you encounter someone making a choice that you know will harm them or the people around them, in one way or another, respectfully pointing it out to them without attacking them or their beliefs would be the moral course of action. Refusing to acknowledge the consequences of their choice, out of respect for their freedom, is not tolerance but indifference. The distinction between tolerance and indifference becomes especially important when one’s actions affect other people and their lives.
Respecting someone’s freedom of religious and political beliefs, even when you disagree with them, is tolerance, until that freedom results in bullying, discrimination, or unjust treatment. Refusing to make a moral judgement in such situations is neither tolerance nor neutrality, but apathy. Each time you use tolerance as an excuse not to involve yourself, you are not only deviating from your moral responsibility but also choosing a side, because every action, including your silence, has consequences and an intent that render it right or wrong.
For a fair and stable society, the ability to distinguish between tolerance and indifference is necessary. One should recognise that everyone has a right to think and live differently, while also refusing to let go of their moral judgements and values. Only then is a tolerant, undivided, and just society possible.