consider Uncle Halvor. Prone to racist innuendo and cruel bigotry across the holiday dinner table, you tolerate him nonetheless. You can5t avoid him by refusing your mothers invitation or breaking off relations with the family. The first would be unjust, and the second just isn’t possible. As Albert Hirschman reminds us, families are not easily exited, even when relations deteriorate, and this fact tends to stimulate voice.11 But perhaps not here. All things being equal, Halvor certainly deserves to be publically corrected if not roundly denounced, not endured in silence, but the circumstances give you pause. You know that correction won’t work, it might even egg him on, and you suspect that a denunciation will push gloomy Aunt Hildegard into ever deeper depression and destroy the already fragile society you share with your mother’s family. Moreover, you know that the young people in the room already despise Uncle Halvor’s racism, so their moral formation is not at risk.To avoid scandal, you may want to pull them aside after the fact and explain why you kept your mouth shut, but this is easily done. So tolerance is the better course. You endure Uncle Halvor. You might try to redirect the conversation to a topic less likely to prompt his racism, but in the end you tolerate his presence and his odious remarks for the sake of the society you share with him in the company of these others. You secure this common good for him insofar as he is a member, but you would shed no tears if Aunt Hildegard would leave him and if he would depart the family. So it goes. In some instances, the tolerant person endures another in the hope that the common goods secured by this act and due this other will be shared with him. In other instances, the tolerant provide this due and intend these ends but without this hope.