In an era where there is a short supply of virtue and a high demand for meaning, the liberal ideal of unending tolerance has sought to fill the void. Gay pride flags adorn embassies, American flags are desecrated with shallow one-liners, and there is a general “do what you like” attitude that pervades American life.
Signs that say “coexist” in fonts that display various religious symbols (the c is a Muslim moon, the o is a peace symbol, the e is a gender symbol, etc.) are proudly put up as if it is somehow virtuous to abstain from choosing a moral code.
None of this is good for society as a whole. G.K. Chesterton stated that “tolerance is the virtue of those who believe nothing.” In order to live a good life one must have a conception of what the good is. And to determine what the good is, one must discriminate against various ways of living, and thereby judge those other ways of living as wrong or even evil.
Tolerance is only adequate insofar as it prevents the excessive imposition of one person’s will upon another person’s. When tolerance seeks to take the place of morality, it necessarily destroys morality because morality is by definition, intolerant of immorality.
In order to transmit values from one generation to another, parents must instill certain standards in their children, thereby implicitly judging other standards. If tolerance takes the place of morality then no standard can be put forth, leading to indecisive people who are unable to stand up for the good.
Tolerance as morality manifested itself in France after The Great War in the form of pacifism. Teacher unions and intellectuals promoted pacifist school policies that constantly denounced the evils of war. In his book Intellectuals and Society Thomas Sowell wrote about how soldiers were reduced to mere victims rather than heroes who gave up their lives to defend their civilization.
By the outbreak of the Second World War France was sufficiently sedated to mount only a mild resistance, rapidly surrendering to the Nazis. Pacifism was so tolerant of evil that it preached nonviolence, even in the face of tyranny and conquest.
Perhaps extreme tolerance would be able to replace morality if men were inclined to be angels. If this were the case, no moral code would be necessary. Utopia would only require that we go about living our lives.
But history is a constant struggle between good and evil. When tolerance replaces virtue it sedates the population, making them unable to stand up for the good, leaving room for the forces of evil to take control. Rioting is excused, destruction of statues is excused, obesity is celebrated, and self-expression is hailed as the paramount of human success. And as society rots from the inside the barbarians come. China came for Hong Kong, the Taliban came for Kabul, Hezbollah came for Israel, and the tyrants continue to play. Most of history has seen humanity languish under tyranny. Tyrants are always hungry and vicious and can only be defeated by the righteous rage that is only possible with a moral code.
Your humble servant,
Silence Dogood
