Intolerant tolerance

Area of Science:

• Political Philosophy
• Ethics
• Public Policy

Background:

• Criticism of the Hyde Amendment and Roman Catholic restrictions on Title X funding often assumes a single definition of tolerance.
• This overlooks competing philosophical conceptions of tolerance, particularly those concerning state power and the value of pluralism.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze two distinct notions of tolerance: one based on the limits of state force and accepting pluralism, and another on the limits of knowledge and promoting pluralism.
• To evaluate these concepts using the philosophies of John Locke and J.S. Mill in the context of religious freedom and public funding debates.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis of tolerance theories, drawing on historical texts (Locke, Mill).
• Examination of the implications of different tolerance models for public policy, specifically Title X funding and reproductive rights.
• Argument for a reconstructed Lockean approach to tolerance in pluralistic societies.

Main Results:

• Two competing concepts of tolerance exist, each with inherent limitations or 'intolerances'.
• A reconstructed Lockean model of tolerance, emphasizing forbearance and negative rights, is preferable in religiously pluralistic contexts.
• This model supports resistance to positive entitlements (e.g., funding for contraception, non-therapeutic abortions) when they conflict with deeply held moral or religious beliefs, due to taxation co-option.

Conclusions:

• The debate over funding restrictions reflects a conflict between different understandings of tolerance and rights.
• A minimal state, respecting negative rights and the free exercise of religion, is philosophically justifiable.
• There is a continuum from tolerance as forbearance to affirming communal integrity, mirroring the distinction between negative and positive rights.