Tolerance enables peaceful coexistence among diverse populations. However, viewing tolerance as an unconditional moral imperative can be problematic. To maintain a stable society, we must recognize that tolerance has limits and requires mutual respect and adherence to social contracts.
Tolerance involves recognizing and respecting the diversity, validity, and value of different perspectives. It is about understanding that people come from various backgrounds, cultures, and belief systems, which shape their viewpoints and experiences. By acknowledging this diversity, we can appreciate the richness it brings to our collective knowledge and societal growth.
Respecting the validity of different perspectives means accepting that others’ opinions and beliefs, even if they differ from ours, are legitimate and worthy of consideration. This approach fosters a culture of open-mindedness and inclusivity, where dialogue and discussion can occur without prejudice or hostility.
Valuing different perspectives requires seeing the inherent worth in various human experiences and insights. It encourages us to learn from others, broadening our own understanding and challenging our preconceived notions. Through tolerance, we create an environment where individuals feel safe to express their thoughts and ideas, leading to a more harmonious and dynamic society.
The Paradox
Philosopher Karl Popper identified a crucial paradox in the concept of tolerance. He argued that if a society is unlimitedly tolerant, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be destroyed by the intolerant. Therefore, Popper concluded that to maintain a tolerant society, we must paradoxically be intolerant of intolerance.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Comment: Many people misinterpret Popper's argument on tolerance and free speech. Popper addressed the danger of those who reject rational debate and resort to violence, not the concept of unrestricted free speech. He argued that tolerance must not extend to those who refuse rational discussion and use force to silence others. Popper's quote emphasizes that suppressing intolerant ideologies is justified when they threaten rational discourse and public safety. His paradox warns against those who shut down debate and free speech, which is often misrepresented. Ironically, some misuse Popper's paradox to support behaviors he cautioned against.
Popper’s perspective aligns with the view of tolerance as a social contract. The protection of tolerance extends only to those who reciprocate it. When one party breaches this contract by imposing on others’ rights or safety, the injured party is no longer obligated to extend tolerance to the aggressor.
In such cases, proportional responses to restore peace become justified. These aren’t equivalent violations but necessary measures to reinstate the social contract. The goal is always to return to a state of mutual tolerance.
It’s essential to recognize that, sometimes, fundamental incompatibilities make peaceful coexistence impossible. In these cases, tolerance may not be achievable, and separation or conflict may be inevitable.
Viewing tolerance as a peace treaty rather than an absolute moral rule allows for a more nuanced and practical approach to social harmony. It protects the essence of tolerance – peaceful coexistence – while providing mechanisms to address breaches and maintain societal stability.
This perspective on tolerance, incorporating Popper’s paradox, forms the basis for concepts like religious freedom and secularism, which have been crucial in resolving historical conflicts and shaping modern democratic societies.
So instead of defining tolerance as something like this:
Tolerance is the willingness to accept and respect beliefs, practices, or behaviors different from one’s own, even if one disagrees with them.
It would be better to define it like this:
Tag: tolerance (8)
The Peace of Westphalia demonstrated that peace is achievable by accepting differing ideologies as long as they do not threaten each other’s existence. This pragmatic tolerance influenced religious freedom in the United States, embodied in the First Amendment.
The key lesson is that tolerance, as a peace treaty, underpins a stable society. It requires mutual respect and adherence to the treaty’s terms. Breaching this agreement by imposing beliefs or causing harm justifies withdrawing tolerance to restore peace. This does not violate tolerance principles but reinforces them, ensuring tolerance does not become a tool for oppression.
Rowan Atkinson, the renowned actor and comedian, has been a vocal advocate for free speech, especially in criticizing political correctness and the new intolerance. He played a significant role in the Reform Section 5 Campaign, which targeted the UK Public Order Act 1986. Section 5 made it an offense to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior” causing “harassment, alarm or distress.” Atkinson and others argued that “insulting” was too broad and stifled free speech.
The campaign highlighted cases where the law was misused against trivial expressions, leading to self-censorship. In 2013, their efforts succeeded when the government removed “insulting” from Section 5, a victory for free speech advocates.
Comment: It’s worth noting that Rowan humorously critiques the idea of “being only intolerant of intolerance,” but he could have emphasized more clearly that this stance is actually appropriate when intolerance equates to violence.
Viewing tolerance as a social contract rather than an unconditional rule offers a practical path to harmony. It ensures peaceful coexistence by balancing acceptance with the need for mutual respect and protection. This approach helps maintain a stable, tolerant society where diversity is respected and intolerance is effectively managed.
Credit: This post was inspired by Yonatan Zunger‘s article Tolerance is not a moral precept.
Resources
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Toleration
Posts that link to this post
POST NAVIGATION
CHAPTER NAVIGATION
Tags: freedom of speech (18) | Karl Popper (7) | paradigm shift (4) | paradox (2) | paradox of tolerance (2) | social contract (1) | tolerance (8)
SEARCH
Blook SearchGoogle Web Search
Related Items
Photo Credits: MidJournrey (Public Domain)
The Gurteen Knowledge Letter is a free monthly newsletter with over 20,000 subscribers that I have been publishing by email for over 20 years.
Learn more about the newsletter and register here.