Back
 OJPP  Vol.2 No.1 , February 2012
Justifying Tolerance in Liberal Societies: The Need for Public Morality
Abstract: One of the most important assumptions in liberal societies is that citizens should be tolerant of a diversity of values. We are challenged by this assumption to justify restraint when we confront what we oppose, disapprove of, or perceive to be immoral, even if we have the power to suppress perceived immoralities. Based on the work of Elliot Turiel, Jonathan Haidt, and Gerald Gaus, the argument developed in this article is that the best way to address the challenge is to distinguish between public morality and other normative categories such as convention and private morality. Public morality circumscribes what should not be publicly tolerated. Conventional and private immoralities that are not prohibited by public morality should be tolerated.
Cite this paper: Tietje, L. (2012). Justifying Tolerance in Liberal Societies: The Need for Public Morality. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2, 10-16. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2012.21002.
References

[1]   Feinberg, J. (1984). The moral limits of the criminal law: Vol. 1. Harm to others. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[2]   Gaus. G. F. (1999). Social philosophy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

[3]   Gert, B. (2008). The definition of morality. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. URL (last checked 29 December 2011) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

[4]   Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

[5]   Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008a). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 181-217). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[6]   Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008b). Social intuitionists reason, in conversation. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 241-254). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[7]   Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007, March). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

[8]   Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009). Planet of the Durkheimians, where community, authority, and sacredness are foundations of morality. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 371-401). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.015

[9]   Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and reasons of liberals and conservatives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 191-221. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02489.x

[10]   Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004, Fall). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55-66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555

[11]   Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Vol. 3. Foundations and the future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. URL (last checked 29 December 2011) http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/publications.html

[12]   Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey, & D. T. Gilbert (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 797-832). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

[13]   Haidt, J., Koller, S., & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613

[14]   Kelly, D., Stich, S., Haley, K. J., Eng, S. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2007, April). Harm, affect, and the moral/conventional distinction. Mind & Language, 22, 117-131. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00302.x

[15]   McKinnon, C. (2006). Toleration: A critical introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203300640

[16]   Nado, J., Kelly, D., & Stich, S. (2009). Moral judgment. In J. Symons, & P. Calvo (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of psychology. New York, NY: Routledge. URL (last checked 29 December 2011) http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/Publications/publications2.htm

[17]   Nichols, S. (2004). Sentimental rules: On the natural foundations of moral judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[18]   Pojman, L. P. (2006). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

[19]   Rozin, P. (1997). Moralization. In A. M. Brandt, & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 379-401). New York, NY: Routledge.

[20]   Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119-169). New York, NY: Routledge.

[21]   Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[22]   Turiel, E., Killen, M., & Helwig, C. C. (1987). Morality: Its structure, function, and vagaries. In J. Kagan, & S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 155-243). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

 
 
Top