본문 바로가기
  • Home

Toleration, Engagement and Non-engagement

Kim Seonghwan 1

1대진대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to argue that toleration as an engagement of state is more ideal than that as a non-engagement of it by analysing four examples such as Jew’s eruv, the hijab ban in France, the prohibition of female circumcision and the conscientious objection to military service. Galeotti proposes a conception of toleration as recognition to solve the problem of toleration in the public space. But her conception meets with the reputation that it is “quixotic” and gives only a mental satisfaction. An alternative is toleration as a non-engagement. The Millet system of Osman empire is a historical model of toleration of state’s non-engagement. But Millet did not respect human rights inside its own system. Newey proposes toleration as a murality and explains Jew’s eruv as a desirable model of it. But I argue that his conception of murality dose not presuppose the respect of human rights. I analyse Kant’s conception of mutual respect and Hegel’s conception of toleration as indifference as philosophical models of toleration as sates’s engagement and non-engagement and argue that Hegel’s conception is an ideal one.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.