Tolerance, criticism, and shared rules need reasons of their own. Relativism does not automatically require tolerance, and objectivity does not license ignoring context. Ask whether people can dissent safely, whether participation is voluntary, and which common protections are needed for cooperation despite unresolved disagreement.
Imagine a fictional public ceremony organized around one community’s tradition. Compare mandatory participation with options shaped through consultation and a common standard of respect. Neither disagreement nor familiarity alone proves the arrangement fair. Ask whether dissent has practical consequences and whether minority participants can influence the rules. The example connects moral disagreement with institutional design: people can cooperate under justified protections while continuing to dispute values, without pretending that the disagreement has disappeared.