Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time

Our time is characterized by what seems like an unprecedented process of intense global homogenization. This reality provides the context for exploring the nature and value of toleration. Hence, this essay is meant primarily as a contribution to international ethics rather than political philosophy....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of ethics 2004, Vol.8 (3), p.225-250
1. Verfasser: BABIC, Jovan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 250
container_issue 3
container_start_page 225
container_title The journal of ethics
container_volume 8
creator BABIC, Jovan
description Our time is characterized by what seems like an unprecedented process of intense global homogenization. This reality provides the context for exploring the nature and value of toleration. Hence, this essay is meant primarily as a contribution to international ethics rather than political philosophy. It is argued that because of the non-eliminability of differences in the world we should not even hope that there can be only one global religion or ideology. Further exploration exposes conceptual affinity between the concepts of intolerance, ideology, and doctrinal evil. The last concept is developed in contrast to pure evil and average evil, and under the assumption of the metaphysical necessity of free will. Doctrinal evil is found to represent the main source of intolerance as a result of a mechanism that tends to confuse doctrinal evil (or the competing conceptions of the good) with pure evil. This connection between doctrinal evil and pure evil provides ideologies with their forcefulness. Tolerance cannot be properly understood in terms of a simple opposition to intolerance, however. Tolerance emerges as a sort of vigilance, conscientiousness, and non-negligence based not on a supposedly correct interpretation of the good, but rather on the acceptance of the fallibility of any such attempted definition. Conversely, the principal evil in doctrinal evil is found in arrogance that accompanies the intolerance-inducing irresponsible thoughtlessness. With this conceptual topology in mind the paper also addresses questions regarding religious tolerance, the ideology of human rights and democracy, the right to self-defense, ways to face evil, the dialectics of using old names for novel evils, and related issues.
doi_str_mv 10.1023/B:JOET.0000031062.98690.8c
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_858948417</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25115795</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25115795</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309c-cbbc5e1b02017bca7e1c27324eb62403c91a80c837778c3fb32f8ebe75531f793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFZ_ghAKHjwkzn5ld3uzNX5R6CWel91lAylpUnfTgv_exBY7lxmYh3mHB6EZhgwDoU-L-ee6KDMYi2LISaZkriCT7gJNMBcklTmoy2GmkqSMc3aNbmLcAOCcKJigx7JrfDB93bXJIWbJS-f6ULemSYpD3SR1m6z3ISnrrb9FV5Vpor879Sn6ei3K5Xu6Wr99LJ9XqaOgXOqsddxjCwSwsM4Ijx0RlDBvc8KAOoWNBCepEEI6WllKKumtF5xTXAlFp2h2vLsL3ffex15vun0YPopacqmYZFgM0PwIudDFGHyld6HemvCjMejRjF7o0Yw-m9F_ZvSQOUUPpwQTnWmqYFpXx_OFMQUzOXD3R24T-y787wnHg1nF6S_QSGvx</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>858948417</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>BABIC, Jovan</creator><creatorcontrib>BABIC, Jovan</creatorcontrib><description>Our time is characterized by what seems like an unprecedented process of intense global homogenization. This reality provides the context for exploring the nature and value of toleration. Hence, this essay is meant primarily as a contribution to international ethics rather than political philosophy. It is argued that because of the non-eliminability of differences in the world we should not even hope that there can be only one global religion or ideology. Further exploration exposes conceptual affinity between the concepts of intolerance, ideology, and doctrinal evil. The last concept is developed in contrast to pure evil and average evil, and under the assumption of the metaphysical necessity of free will. Doctrinal evil is found to represent the main source of intolerance as a result of a mechanism that tends to confuse doctrinal evil (or the competing conceptions of the good) with pure evil. This connection between doctrinal evil and pure evil provides ideologies with their forcefulness. Tolerance cannot be properly understood in terms of a simple opposition to intolerance, however. Tolerance emerges as a sort of vigilance, conscientiousness, and non-negligence based not on a supposedly correct interpretation of the good, but rather on the acceptance of the fallibility of any such attempted definition. Conversely, the principal evil in doctrinal evil is found in arrogance that accompanies the intolerance-inducing irresponsible thoughtlessness. With this conceptual topology in mind the paper also addresses questions regarding religious tolerance, the ideology of human rights and democracy, the right to self-defense, ways to face evil, the dialectics of using old names for novel evils, and related issues.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1382-4554</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8609</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1023/B:JOET.0000031062.98690.8c</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><subject>Argumentation ; Democracy ; Evil ; Exercise tolerance ; Globalization ; Human rights ; Metaphysics ; Morality ; Phenomena ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of history. Social and political philosophy. Philosophy of law ; Self defense ; Social and political philosophy</subject><ispartof>The journal of ethics, 2004, Vol.8 (3), p.225-250</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309c-cbbc5e1b02017bca7e1c27324eb62403c91a80c837778c3fb32f8ebe75531f793</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25115795$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25115795$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,801,4012,27910,27911,27912,58004,58237</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=15894148$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BABIC, Jovan</creatorcontrib><title>Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time</title><title>The journal of ethics</title><description>Our time is characterized by what seems like an unprecedented process of intense global homogenization. This reality provides the context for exploring the nature and value of toleration. Hence, this essay is meant primarily as a contribution to international ethics rather than political philosophy. It is argued that because of the non-eliminability of differences in the world we should not even hope that there can be only one global religion or ideology. Further exploration exposes conceptual affinity between the concepts of intolerance, ideology, and doctrinal evil. The last concept is developed in contrast to pure evil and average evil, and under the assumption of the metaphysical necessity of free will. Doctrinal evil is found to represent the main source of intolerance as a result of a mechanism that tends to confuse doctrinal evil (or the competing conceptions of the good) with pure evil. This connection between doctrinal evil and pure evil provides ideologies with their forcefulness. Tolerance cannot be properly understood in terms of a simple opposition to intolerance, however. Tolerance emerges as a sort of vigilance, conscientiousness, and non-negligence based not on a supposedly correct interpretation of the good, but rather on the acceptance of the fallibility of any such attempted definition. Conversely, the principal evil in doctrinal evil is found in arrogance that accompanies the intolerance-inducing irresponsible thoughtlessness. With this conceptual topology in mind the paper also addresses questions regarding religious tolerance, the ideology of human rights and democracy, the right to self-defense, ways to face evil, the dialectics of using old names for novel evils, and related issues.</description><subject>Argumentation</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Evil</subject><subject>Exercise tolerance</subject><subject>Globalization</subject><subject>Human rights</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Phenomena</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of history. Social and political philosophy. Philosophy of law</subject><subject>Self defense</subject><subject>Social and political philosophy</subject><issn>1382-4554</issn><issn>1572-8609</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>88H</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2N</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFZ_ghAKHjwkzn5ld3uzNX5R6CWel91lAylpUnfTgv_exBY7lxmYh3mHB6EZhgwDoU-L-ee6KDMYi2LISaZkriCT7gJNMBcklTmoy2GmkqSMc3aNbmLcAOCcKJigx7JrfDB93bXJIWbJS-f6ULemSYpD3SR1m6z3ISnrrb9FV5Vpor879Sn6ei3K5Xu6Wr99LJ9XqaOgXOqsddxjCwSwsM4Ijx0RlDBvc8KAOoWNBCepEEI6WllKKumtF5xTXAlFp2h2vLsL3ffex15vun0YPopacqmYZFgM0PwIudDFGHyld6HemvCjMejRjF7o0Yw-m9F_ZvSQOUUPpwQTnWmqYFpXx_OFMQUzOXD3R24T-y787wnHg1nF6S_QSGvx</recordid><startdate>2004</startdate><enddate>2004</enddate><creator>BABIC, Jovan</creator><general>Kluwer Academic Publishers</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88H</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2004</creationdate><title>Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time</title><author>BABIC, Jovan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c309c-cbbc5e1b02017bca7e1c27324eb62403c91a80c837778c3fb32f8ebe75531f793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Argumentation</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Evil</topic><topic>Exercise tolerance</topic><topic>Globalization</topic><topic>Human rights</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Phenomena</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of history. Social and political philosophy. Philosophy of law</topic><topic>Self defense</topic><topic>Social and political philosophy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BABIC, Jovan</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Religion Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences &amp; Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Religion Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The journal of ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BABIC, Jovan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time</atitle><jtitle>The journal of ethics</jtitle><date>2004</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>225</spage><epage>250</epage><pages>225-250</pages><issn>1382-4554</issn><eissn>1572-8609</eissn><abstract>Our time is characterized by what seems like an unprecedented process of intense global homogenization. This reality provides the context for exploring the nature and value of toleration. Hence, this essay is meant primarily as a contribution to international ethics rather than political philosophy. It is argued that because of the non-eliminability of differences in the world we should not even hope that there can be only one global religion or ideology. Further exploration exposes conceptual affinity between the concepts of intolerance, ideology, and doctrinal evil. The last concept is developed in contrast to pure evil and average evil, and under the assumption of the metaphysical necessity of free will. Doctrinal evil is found to represent the main source of intolerance as a result of a mechanism that tends to confuse doctrinal evil (or the competing conceptions of the good) with pure evil. This connection between doctrinal evil and pure evil provides ideologies with their forcefulness. Tolerance cannot be properly understood in terms of a simple opposition to intolerance, however. Tolerance emerges as a sort of vigilance, conscientiousness, and non-negligence based not on a supposedly correct interpretation of the good, but rather on the acceptance of the fallibility of any such attempted definition. Conversely, the principal evil in doctrinal evil is found in arrogance that accompanies the intolerance-inducing irresponsible thoughtlessness. With this conceptual topology in mind the paper also addresses questions regarding religious tolerance, the ideology of human rights and democracy, the right to self-defense, ways to face evil, the dialectics of using old names for novel evils, and related issues.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Kluwer Academic Publishers</pub><doi>10.1023/B:JOET.0000031062.98690.8c</doi><tpages>26</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1382-4554
ispartof The journal of ethics, 2004, Vol.8 (3), p.225-250
issn 1382-4554
1572-8609
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_858948417
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Argumentation
Democracy
Evil
Exercise tolerance
Globalization
Human rights
Metaphysics
Morality
Phenomena
Philosophy
Philosophy of history. Social and political philosophy. Philosophy of law
Self defense
Social and political philosophy
title Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T12%3A30%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Toleration%20vs.%20Doctrinal%20Evil%20in%20Our%20Time&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20ethics&rft.au=BABIC,%20Jovan&rft.date=2004&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=225&rft.epage=250&rft.pages=225-250&rft.issn=1382-4554&rft.eissn=1572-8609&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023/B:JOET.0000031062.98690.8c&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E25115795%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=858948417&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=25115795&rfr_iscdi=true