Response to Emily M. Crookston and David Kelley

Reason Papers 2 (38):27-38 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
A response to critical commentaries. Crookston begins her commentary by noting that my book would have been better with answers to “the following three questions: (1) Why is the harm principle the right principle upon which to base a theory of toleration? (2) How is Cohen thinking of the concept of volenti? (p. x ) Is interference (i.e., the abandonment of toleration) ever morally required by the harm principle?” (p. x ). She is right, and I address these questions below in Sections 2, 3, and 4. That is the bulk of this essay. I then turn to Kelley's issues in Sections 6, 7, and 8; these have to do with “the link between toleration and relativism,” the way I distinguish “the concepts of toleration and endurance,” and a “question about moral toleration” (p. x ). Despite much agreement, there are points of contention and I try to make my position clearer in response
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-01-15
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
20 ( #58,813 of 2,432,203 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #34,381 of 2,432,203 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.