求一份英语演讲比赛稿主题是tolerance and respect

求一份英语演讲比赛稿主题是tolerance and respect

On tolerance vs.respect
Most of us as citizens of democratic countries would agree,at least in principle,that tolerance for other people鈥檚 ideas and customs is a positive value.A subset of us would also agree that respect for other people鈥檚 ways of thinking should ideally be an integral part of the ethos of a free society.I disagree about the latter,and I鈥檇 like to briefly explore the difference between -- and the limits of -- the too often confused concepts of tolerance and respect.
While it is possible to think of tolerance and respect as synonyms,or at least as tightly linked to each other,I am going to argue that while respect implies tolerance,the other way around is by no means assured.I think that being tolerant means something akin to 鈥渓ive and let live鈥滬 for example,I am tolerant of the Ku Klux Klan in the sense that I am not going to push for outlawing explicitly racist groups (as is the case,for example,in Canada),as long as they don鈥檛 advocate violence against minorities.Does that mean that I have respect for a view that considers blacks as inferior to whites?Hell no,I despise everything the Klan stands for,and I have a real hard time comprehending how any decent human being could possibly conceive of belonging to such a group.That,I think,makes the distinction between tolerance and respect as clear as I can muster to explain.
The example of the Klan also immediately clarifies why one can tolerate something without respecting it.A second or two more of considered thought should elucidate why,on the other hand,respect does imply tolerance.It is hard to imagine that one can respect some ideas,say the right of a woman to seek abortion,and not tolerate its actual practice (that is,demanding laws that restrict or eliminate the possibility of a woman to obtain an abortion).
Now that I have established the framework of my discussion,let us get a bit more detailed about the nuances of both tolerance and respect.To begin with,it seems to me that one is under no obligation of respecting any set of ideas one profoundly disagrees with.So I don鈥檛 feel the least bit guilty for not respecting Republican politics (I think it tends to be motivated either by greed or by a grossly misconceived notion of human flourishing) or religious belief (because it worships an imaginary being and pretends to derive from it a universal moral code,often with the urge to impose it on others).When my Republican or religious acquaintances (or casual readers) get 鈥渙ffended鈥 at my attitude of 鈥渄isrespect鈥 they are missing an important point:I tolerate them (as I should,believing as I do in democracy and a liberal society),but that doesn鈥檛 shield them from criticism,even of a satirical flavor.
What about tolerance?Are there ideas and customs that should not be tolerated,even by members of a liberal society?Yes,plenty.The practice,common in some societies,of operating on a young girl鈥檚 clitoris so that she will not feel sexual pleasure as an adult is barbaric,and cannot and should not be defended as simply another 鈥渃ultural custom.鈥 It is wrong for the simple reason that it hurts an innocent human being who is in no position to understand or oppose what is being done to her.There are many more obvious instances of things we shouldn鈥檛 tolerate,of course (say,terrorism),but I think that examples like clitorectomy bring the limits of the concept into sharper focus,because not everybody in our society agrees that such a practice is barbarian.Heck,many of my liberal friends even recoil from the use of the term 鈥渂arbarian鈥 when referring to another society.Sorry,folks,but I think that Iran is currently stuck in the late Middle Ages,and I make no apologies for stating it -- which I don鈥檛 mean as a compliment.
Finally,what about tolerance and respect for individuals,rather than ideas?I think that the same considerations can be applied to people holding some ideas as to the ideas they hold.After all,ideas don鈥檛 exist outside people鈥檚 minds,last time I checked.If I tolerate,but don鈥檛 respect,what the KKK stands for,my tolerance extends to its members,but I sure am under no obligation to respect the latter any more than the former.There is,however,an important difference between ideas and individuals,in the context of this discussion.An individual can hold a despicable idea in perfectly good faith,which may entitle the individual to respect,even though one may not wish to grant that status to the idea (it follows from everything I said above that both the idea and the individual should be tolerated).For example,I have a good friend who is a Republican; I have little respect for many of her political ideas,but she is a very good person,and means well,so not only I respect her,but I consider her a dear friend.
However,this asymmetry between people and ideas can work the other way around.Some people may hold ideas that are worthy of respect (or even of outright endorsement),but they themselves may fail to meet the conditions necessary for being respected.For example,consider someone who lies and manipulates others in order to achieve a good end.Unlike Machiavelli,I may cheer for the final outcome,but I wouldn鈥檛 invite the person in question to dinner at my house (which is why I am glad of Saddam Hussein鈥檚 fall,and still wish with all my being that Bush not be re-elected in 4 -- no contradiction at all is involved here).
Tolerance,therefore,is not and does not imply respect,and the relationship between the two is much more nuanced than seems to emerge from many instances of public discourse in our society.Next time you watch Bill O鈥橰eilly,please feel free to tolerate the existence of Fox News,but also to relish an utmost disrespect for both Bill鈥檚 ideas and for him as a person,considering the willful lies he habitually dishes out to his audience.