成熟与宽容

成熟与宽容，有时候是要付出代价的，不只是获得成熟要付出代价，表现成熟，一样要付出代价。     

论医生的宽容心

"心"在中国哲学中具有核心地位和重要价值,当代医生应从"心"出发来发现、把握、提升、完善自己的内在精神世界.医生宽容心是指医生允许或理解病患及同事有不同行动和判断自由的一种包容态度和豁达心理.宽容心可以提升医生的身心健康水平,促进医德的养成,有助于建立和谐的医患关系和良好的医际关系.     

有容乃大——论宽容与和谐社会建设

在构建社会主义和谐社会的过程中,如何适应我国社会的深刻变化,以马克思主义为指导,充分吸收和运用中国传统文化的宝贵资源,是一个具有重要理论意义和现实意义的课题.宽容是和谐社会的基本精神,是实现和谐社会的一块基石.     

智慧与宽容

感谢家乡父老和＂任继愈研究会＂的盛情邀请,使我回到家乡,参加这次盛会、在飘荡各地半个多世纪以后,回到这块养育过我的土地,特别是参加任继愈研究会,仿佛我与家兄继愈在这里又见面了。这是我们儿时生活的地方。我与家兄继愈的童年都是在这里度过的。童年岁月最值得怀念,父亲,母亲,哥哥,后院的水井,屋顶的鸽子群,香椿树,丁香花,小树林,槐树下埋葬小猫的墓地,还有二哥给小猫坟墓写的墓碑。多少富于浓郁情感故事!都说金色童年,作为一个漂泊终生的耄耋老人来说,童年的记忆远比金子贵重得多。对于童年的故乡,真有说不完的话,无以名状的思念!会议组织者给我这个宝贵的机会。内心的感激之情是无法表达的。     

宽容人世间

宽容是对他人温和,给自己一份好心情。宽容意味着尊重、信任、理解和沟通。但是,在现如今的社会里,有许多人却忽略了“宽容”,致使很多不该发生的悲剧发生了。所以。我们要不断弘扬宽容的美德,愿宽容像一束阳光,照亮每个人的生活之路,使人与人之间的关系更为友好、更加融洽。     

宽容是高贵的品质

你对宽容如何理解？在我看来，就像你把一朵雅致如雪的兰花踩在脚底，它却把芳香的气息留在了你的脚背。这就是兰花的宽容。     

当代中国公民道德发展的历史与逻辑

"公民"和"公民道德"在当代中国有一个逐步发展的历史过程,中国公民身份变迁的历程以及由此而来的公民道德发展的生成历史和发展逻辑构成了进一步推进当代中国公民道德建设的现实起点。在社会不断变革的过程中,中国公民道德建设正呈现出某种回归自身的基本态势,并面临着社会变革所带来的众多挑战。如何正确看待这种回归,如何积极应对已经出现和可能出现的挑战,已成为当代中国公民道德发展过程中不得不认真思考的一个问题。     

宽容是金

一位德高望重的长老，在寺院的高墙边发现一把座椅，他知道有人借此越墙到寺外。长老搬走了椅子，凭感觉在这儿等候。午夜，外出的小和尚爬上墙，再跳到椅子上，他觉得“椅子”不似先前硬，软软的甚至有点弹性。     

宗教宽容与北爱社会冲突的化解

耗费了无数人心血的《北爱尔兰和平协议》终于达成,但是北爱人民并没有享受到随之而来的和平。本文从分析北爱宗教分裂和宗教歧视的现状入手,通过对冲突化解理论的剖析,指出在北爱这样一个宗教严重分裂的社会,没有宗教的宽容精神,就难以实现社会的真正和解以及和谐。     

专题二：宽容原则与中国哲学——五、宽容之起点

在戴维森富有影响的理论框架中，宽容原则认为，当我们解释他人或另类的时候，我们必须坚持这样的前提：他们是理性的存在，他们与我们谈论和生活在同样的世界里。否则，如果我们固守信念或只进行概念的论述，我们就根本不可能理解他们。戴维森在他最近有关解释的述中指出，他以前倾向于用“最大化”一致信念这样的字眼来解释     

Democracy,Equality and Toleration

In this paper I comment on a recent “letter” by Burleigh Wilkins addressed to nascent egalitarian democracies which offers advice on the achievement of religious toleration. I argue that while Wilkins’ advice is sound as far as it goes, it is nevertheless underdeveloped insofar as his letter fails to distinguish two competing conceptions of toleration – liberal-pluralist and republican-secularist – both of which are consistent with the advice he offers, but each of which yields very different policy recommendations (as can be seen by consideration of The United States v. Lee in America and, I’affaire du foulard in France). I argue that a democratic society of equals must be committed to liberal-pluralist rather than republican-secularist toleration. Some material in this paper is drawn from Catriona McKinnon, Toleration: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2006). This paper was written during a Fellowship on the Philosophy Program, School of Advanced Study, University of London. I am grateful to the University of York for a sabbatical term, and the Leverhulme Trust for a Study Abroad Fellowship, during which this paper was written. I would like to thank John Horton and Cécile Laborde for very useful written comments, and two anonymous referees for The Journal of Ethics for their reports.     

Religious Toleration and Organisational Typologies

In Britain at least, secularisation has proceeded to the point where the characteristics that conventionally divide churches, denominations, sects, and cults as types of religious organisation have largely disappeared. Drawing on survey data and newspaper reports collected over the last three decades, we argue that societal hostility now focuses so narrowly on tangential aspects of religion that the characteristic of existing in a high degree of tension with the wider environment (which is central to most definitions of the sect) is increasingly rare and is now likely to be applied to churches and denominations. The article concludes with a suggestion for a new typology.     

Toleration and Cultural Controversies*

Multicultural societies are far more likely than others to include minorities committed to the pursuit of practices that offend the majority, and treating the cultural commitments of all citizens fairly will require some set of guiding principles to distinguish tolerable ‘cultural controversies’ from intolerable ones. This paper does not directly address the moral question at stake here (i.e. demarcating the limits of toleration) but rather seeks to provide a politically justifiable normative argument to explain when tolerant restraint is necessary, permissible or prohibited. This argument emerges from a concern to treat the cultural commitments of all citizens fairly. In turn, the argument indicates a potential reconciliation of the ‘politics of toleration’ with the ‘politics of respect’. *I would like to thank Stephen De Wijze, Hillel Steiner, Thomas Uebel, Peter Jones and Res Publica’s anonymous referees for their very helpful comments. I would also like to thank the ESRC for providing funding.     

Toleration,Religion and Accommodation

Issues of religious toleration might be thought dead and advocacy of religious toleration a pointless exercise in preaching to the converted, at least in most contemporary European societies. This paper challenges that view. It does so principally by focusing on issues of religious accommodation as these arise in contemporary multi‐faith societies. Drawing on the cases of exemption, Article 9 of the ECHR, and law governing indirect religious discrimination, it argues that issues and instances of accommodation are issues and instances of toleration. Special attention is given to issues that arise when the claims of religious belief conflict with those of other legally protected characteristics, especially sexual orientation. The paper uses a concept of toleration appropriate to a liberal democratic political order—one that replaces the ‘vertical’ ruler‐to‐subject model of toleration that suited early modern monarchies with a ‘horizontal’ citizen‐to‐citizen model appropriate to a political order that aims to uphold an ideal of toleration rather than itself extend toleration to those whose lives it regulates.     

Toleration and the Design of Norms

One of the pressing challenges we face today—in a post-Westphalian order (emergence of the state as the modern, political information agent) and post-Bretton Woods world (emergence of non-state multiagent systems or MASs as “hyperhistorical” players in the global economy and politics)—is how to design the right kind of MAS that can take full advantage of the socio-economic and political progress made so far, while dealing successfully with the new global challenges that are undermining the best legacy of that very progress. This is the topic of the article. In it, I argue that (i) in order to design the right kind of MAS, we need to design the right kind of norms that constitute them; (ii) in order to design the right kind of constitutive norms, we need to identify and adopt the right kind of principles of normative design; (iii) toleration is one of those principles; (iv) unfortunately, its role as a foundation for the design of norms has been undermined by the “paradox of toleration”; (v) however, the paradox can be solved; (vi) so toleration can be re-instated as the right kind of foundational principle for the design of the right kind of norms that can constitute the right kind of MAS that can operate across cultures, societies and states, to help us to tackle the new global challenges facing us.