Morality is about how people behave towards each other. It deals with principles, values, rules and norms that govern human behavior. It defines what is right and wrong. Ethics, on the other hand, is concerned with how to make decisions and judgments based on these principles. Tolerance refers to the ability to respect differences and accept others without necessarily agreeing with them. In the context of systemic inequality, moral tolerance means accepting the existence of such inequality and not taking any action against it. This paper will explore the distinction between moral tolerance and ethical complacency in relation to systemic inequality.
Let's define 'systemic inequality'. Systemic inequality refers to social injustice embedded within institutions, practices, structures, policies, ideologies, discourses, beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Examples include gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, religion, age, nationality, education, language, political affiliation, etc. The term was coined by feminist sociologist Patricia Hill Collins in the 1980s to describe how power relations create and maintain unequal opportunities and outcomes for different groups.
Let's define 'moral tolerance'. Moral tolerance involves accepting the existence of systemic inequality without trying to change it or challenge it. It means acknowledging the existence of inequalities but not seeing them as a problem that needs to be addressed. People who exhibit moral tolerance may believe that inequalities are natural or even justified. They do not see themselves as having the responsibility to work towards their elimination.
Let's define 'ethical complacency'. Ethical complacency is similar to moral tolerance, but differs in its approach to systemic inequality. It involves recognizing the existence of systemic inequality and not doing anything about it.
Unlike moral tolerance, ethical complacency also sees systemic inequality as a legitimate form of difference and therefore refuses to act against it. This passive stance often comes from a lack of awareness or commitment to addressing inequalities.
Fourth, let's explore how these two concepts differ in terms of individual behavior. Moral tolerance can lead to personal benefits and privileges in situations where people have more power than others, while ignoring those with less power.
Someone might tolerate racial discrimination because they are white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-class, etc., and benefit from it. Similarly, someone may overlook gendered violence if they are not directly affected by it. In contrast, ethical complacency allows individuals to maintain neutrality, which protects their status quo. By failing to take action against inequalities, people avoid being labeled as "troublemakers" or "radicals".
We will discuss why these distinctions matter. Both moral tolerance and ethical complacency allow systems of oppression to persist. They fail to challenge structural barriers that perpetuate inequality and create an illusion that everyone has equal opportunities. By accepting inequality without trying to change it, individuals reinforce social norms that justify power imbalances. People who exhibit either attitude towards systemic inequality contribute to the maintenance of the existing order, rather than working for its transformation.
Moral tolerance and ethical complacency both involve accepting the existence of systemic inequality without taking action against it.
They differ in terms of their approach to inequalities. While moral tolerance involves acknowledging differences but not seeing them as a problem, ethical complacency denies the need for addressing inequalities altogether. These attitudes contribute to the persistence of oppressive structures and can lead to personal benefits and privileges. It is important to recognize and reject them, and work actively for social justice instead.
What distinguishes moral tolerance from ethical complacency in the face of systemic inequality?
The term "moral tolerance" refers to an individual's willingness to accept other people's values and behaviors that may conflict with one's own. On the other hand, "ethical complacency" involves the passive acceptance of unjust and discriminatory social systems that perpetuate inequality, despite knowing better. While both terms suggest a lack of action against oppression, they differ significantly in their underlying motivations and consequences.