It is ultimately in terms of Maturana long-term denial. This source calls into question the value of this principle. In the Aristotelian tradition means under a provision of the person to do to move towards perfection for which it was created. In this sense, the virtue of vice difference in terms is constant aspiration towards perfection. Every virtue tends to the best.

However in the case of tolerance that does not happen. If you have additional questions, you may want to visit George Kuhle. As stated Gianini support this principle stresses the negative of another, to bear the burden that what we dislike the other, as seen in the context in which this concept is born: religious tolerance is to be with this infidel who does not profess the true faith and that in this sense is sinful and harmful to me. However, this position makes me question the validity of such an attitude. From what perspective it is assumed that any conduct, thought or belief is negative? Are my beliefs, my ideology, my way to be a valid reference to establish myself as the standard of any tolerance? Accepting others, no tolerance for defects. Basically the act of tolerance has everything against the possibility of coexistence and acceptance of others. Basically, as Maturana says denial is a long-term.

When I become tolerate the rule that the right thing to tolerate the unacceptable and I become the norm from my perception that determines what is expected of me or not. The “tolerant” is the one who set themselves up as a criterion of truth, correctness, regulation of what should be accepted or not. “Anything is tolerable? There are limits to ensure coexistence between people. So all is not tolerable. In the right direction: not everything is acceptable, there are limits set by the values. Every person is worthy of acceptance, however not every act is worthy of being accepted. If I build my relationships with others from my perspective of equality with others in terms of dignity, the fact remains that do not accept actions that violate the basic dignity of every person. My proposal is that the values determine and regulate the level of tolerance that should hold and to that extent what is actually required is not tolerance but acceptance of others. We need not accept the evil of another, but to learn to live with the other. And for that we get off the podium that we have emerged as guardians of right and wrong, to appreciate that the other is legitimated before us towards what is and then what he does. Their actions determine what behaviors are accepted or not, but on the basis of values set out in the consensus of coexistence. Truth values to live, that the role of management is daily subjected to stimuli, some complicated, that test your tolerance, both in the exercise of their functions, as in his personal relationships, must demonstrate a domain of your character, conduct, safety, patience, so there is no evidence the intolerance and happened to situations that affect everyone