FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM
Determinists believe that it is possible to predict the future with certainty, even where human action is concerned. They believe that free will is merely an illusion, and that whenever we as humans think we have a choice, our answer is actually fully determined by conditions and causes.
Libertarians believe that free will does exist, that in any given situation we could have chosen otherwise. Some Libertarians consider the mind to be outside the chain of causality, which is why our thoughts cannot be caused: after all, it's not like our mind can be affected by any physical means, as the mind is as intangible as a ghost or a god. Famously, Ayn Rand opposes Libertarian idealism, calling it a threat to capitalism. She even created her own philosophy in response: Objectivism.
Compatibilists believe that Determinism and Libertarianism are not opposite, and that it is possible to believe in both determinism and free will. 'A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.' This statement means that people do what they have a motive to do, nothing more and nothing less. You cannot choose your motives, so you cannot choose your actions because they are decided by your motives which are decided by your experiences why are determined. Compatibilism is an extremely weak conception of free will, I would not even call that free will. Incompatibilism's most common argument is that Compatibilism is merely Determinism under the guise of 'rejuggled' words.
TOLERANCE
Lord Devlin argues against tolerance by saying that it is the duty of the government to impose one shared moral system on their subjects. He argues that morality should be social, not private. He is not opposed to the quashing of conflicting beliefs, as he thinks that a single shared moral system would benefit society more than any other alternative.Some say this philosophy would cause conflict and strife from people who disagree with this system. Devlin counter argues by stating that if his recommendations were followed properly, everyone would be sharing one moral code and conflict would not arise.
However, Devlin's argument favors moral agreement over moral truth. Though his system would be, in a sense, 'fair', it would not be conducive to finding the absolute moral truth. Another criticism is that once a single moral code had been imposed, it may stifle individual and social welfare. For instance, Devlin believed that homesexuality was morally wrong. Now that laws have been passed effectively legalizing homosexuality, we have not experience a disintegration of society or moral values. This suggests that Devlin's argument was flawed.
A philosopher named Rawls believed that the only universally imposed moral rule should be one of tolerance: that we all must tolerate each other, though perhaps this should be taken more as a criticism of Devlin's argument rather than it's own argument for tolerance.
Devlin's argument also infringes on autonomy. By encouraging one particular system of beliefs, it is removing a persons ability to choose for themselves. However, autonomy is not necessarily beneficial to the masses. Some people make choices that may not benefit them as much as if things were chosen for them. This is one argument against tolerance: Why tolerate beliefs that are sup-optimal, or even negative?
John Stewart Mill argues for tolerance. In a nutshell, his argument boils down to the fact that in order to learn, we must discuss, and in order to properly discuss, there must be opposition of views. Someone to play devil's advocate as it were. He argues, for instance, that we should tolerate racists because they have unique perspectives on the subject of racism, and so they are an important member in the debates on racism.
However, Mill's argument is also flawed. Is it more beneficial to allow racists continued existence just so that we can have a varied debate? Would it not be more beneficial to discourage racism entirely, so that others do not fall into the trap of thinking it is right? Mill assumes that a racist holds such values because they have rationalized and arrived at that conclusion, but they could be entirely irrational. This would make their contributions to any debate worthless, as the underlying though processes are mangled.
