Paradox of tolerance

Last updated

"Personification of Tolerance", a statue displayed in Luzanky. Part of a larger display honoring Joseph II that was dismantled by Czech nationalists following their independence, as it was considered a symbol of German culture. Brno, Luzanky - Statue- Personification of Tolerance - Portrait.jpg
"Personification of Tolerance", a statue displayed in Lužánky. Part of a larger display honoring Joseph II that was dismantled by Czech nationalists following their independence, as it was considered a symbol of German culture.

The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

Contents

The paradox has been widely discussed within ethics and political philosophy, with varying views on how tolerant societies should respond to intolerant forces. John Rawls, for instance, argued that a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preservation actions only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability. Other thinkers, such as Michael Walzer, have examined how minority groups, which may hold intolerant beliefs, are nevertheless beneficiaries of tolerance within pluralistic societies.

This paradox raises complex issues about the limits of freedom, especially concerning free speech and the protection of liberal democratic values. It has implications for contemporary debates on managing hate speech, political extremism, and social policies aimed at fostering inclusivity without compromising the integrity of democratic tolerance.

History

Karl Popper wrote on tolerance of intolerance in Vol. 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945. Karl Popper.jpg
Karl Popper wrote on tolerance of intolerance in Vol. 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies , published in 1945.

One of the earliest formulations of "paradox of tolerance" is given in the notes of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1945. Popper raises the paradox in the chapter notes regarding "The Principle of Leadership", connecting the paradox to his refutation of Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism". In the main text, Popper addresses Plato's similar "paradox of freedom": Plato points out the contradiction inherent in unchecked freedom, as it implies the freedom to act to limit the freedom of others. Plato argues that true democracy inevitably leads to tyranny, and suggests that the rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority rule. [2]

Popper rejects Plato's argument, in part because he argues that there are no readily available "enlightened philosopher-kings" prepared to adopt this role, and advocates for the institutions of liberal democracies as an alternative. In the corresponding chapter notes, Popper defines the paradox of tolerance and makes a similar argument. Of both tolerance and freedom, Popper argues for the necessity of limiting unchecked freedom and intolerance in order to prevent despotic rule rather than to embrace it. [3]

There are earlier examples of the discourse on tolerance and its limits. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech as President of the United States. Concerning those who might destabilize the United States and its unity, Jefferson stated: "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." [4]

Gaetano Mosca, leading proponent of early elite theory. Gaetano Mosca.gif
Gaetano Mosca, leading proponent of early elite theory.

Political theorist Gaetano Mosca is also well-known to have remarked long before Popper: "[i]f tolerance is taken to the point where it tolerates the destruction of those same principles that made tolerance possible in the first place, it becomes intolerable." [ citation needed ]

Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice , stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." [5] [6]

In On Toleration (1997), Michael Walzer asked, "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He claims that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such (intolerant) people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue". [7]

Exact formulations

Preston King describes tolerance as occurring when one objects to but voluntarily endures certain acts, ideas, organisations and identities. [8] This involves two components:

  1. An objection component, wherein an agent objects to an item. For instance, a follower of one faith may assert the beliefs of another faith are wrong. If this objection component is absent, the agent is not tolerant but simply indifferent.
  2. An acceptance component, which does not resolve the objection but instead offers positive reasons for overlooking it, e.g. social harmony. This acceptance must be voluntary — enduring an oppressive government, for example, is not an instance of tolerance because it is not voluntary, as the person enduring such a government has no choice but to accept this state of affairs.

Deciding whether to tolerate an item involves a balancing of reasons, for example when we weigh the reasons for rejecting an idea we find problematic against the benefit of accepting it in the name of social harmony, and it is in this balancing of reasons that the paradox of tolerance arises. [9] Most formulations of tolerance assert that tolerance is a reciprocal act, and the intolerant need not be tolerated. This necessitates drawing a limit between the tolerant and intolerant in every implementation of tolerance, which suggests that any act of tolerance requires an act of intolerance. [10]

Proposed solutions

Philosopher Rainer Forst resolves the contradiction in philosophical terms by outlining tolerance as a social norm and distinguishing between two notions of "intolerance": the denial of tolerance as a social norm, and the rejection of this denial. [9]

Other solutions to the paradox of intolerance frame it in more practical terms, a solution favored by philosophers such as Karl Popper. Popper underlines the importance of rational argument, drawing attention to the fact that many intolerant philosophies reject rational argument and thus prevent calls for tolerance from being received on equal terms: [3]

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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 most 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Popper also draws attention to the fact that intolerance is often asserted through the use of violence, drawing on a point re-iterated by philosophers such as John Rawls. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls asserts that a society must tolerate the intolerant in order to be a just society, but qualifies this assertion by stating that exceptional circumstances may call for society to exercise its right to self-preservation against acts of intolerance that threaten the liberty and security of the tolerant. [5] Such formulations address the inherent moral contradiction that arises from the assumption that the moral virtue of tolerance is at odds with the toleration of moral wrongs, which can be resolved by grounding toleration within limits defined by a higher moral order. [9]

Another solution is to place tolerance in the context of social contract theory: to wit, tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society. [11] Approaches in a defensive democracy which ban intolerant or extremist behavior are often ineffective against a strategy of a façade, which does not meet the legal criteria for a ban. [12]

Tolerance and freedom of speech

The paradox of tolerance is meaningful in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. In The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance: The Struggle Against Kahanism in Israel (1994), Raphael Cohen-Almagor asserts that to afford freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which that freedom relies is paradoxical. [13] Michel Rosenfeld, in the Harvard Law Review in 1987, stated: "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who ... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree." [14] Rosenfeld contrasts the approach to hate speech between Western European democracies and the United States, pointing out that among Western European nations, extremely intolerant or fringe political materials (e.g. Holocaust denial) are characterized as inherently socially disruptive, and are subject to legal constraints on their circulation as such, [15] while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and cannot be restricted except when incitement to violence or other illegal activities is made explicit. [16]

Criticism of violent intolerance as a response to intolerant speech is characteristic of discourse ethics as developed by Jürgen Habermas [17] and Karl-Otto Apel. [18]

Homophily and intolerance

A relationship between intolerance and homophily, a preference for interacting with those with similar traits, appears when a tolerant person's relationship with an intolerant member of an in-group is strained by the tolerant person's relationship with a member of an out-group that is the subject of this intolerance. An intolerant person would disapprove this person's positive relationship with a member of the out-group. If this view is generally supported by the social norms of the in-group, a tolerant person risks being ostracized because of their toleration. If they succumb to social pressure, they may be rewarded for adopting an intolerant attitude. [19]

This dilemma has been considered by Fernando Aguiar and Antonio Parravano in "Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks" (2013), [19] modeling a community of individuals whose relationships are governed by a modified form of the Heider balance theory. [20] [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justice</span> Concept of moral fairness and administration of the law

Justice, in its broadest sense, is the concept that individuals are to be treated in a manner that is equitable and fair.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karl Popper</span> Austrian–British philosopher of science (1902–1994)

Sir Karl Raimund Popper was an Austrian–British philosopher, academic and social commentator. One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can be scrutinised with decisive experiments. Popper was opposed to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".

Tolerance or toleration is the state of tolerating, or putting up with, conditionally.

Cultural relativism is the position that there is no universal standard to measure cultures by, and that all cultural values and beliefs must be understood relative to their cultural context, and not judged based on outside norms and values. Proponents of cultural relativism also tend to argue that the norms and values of one culture should not be evaluated using the norms and values of another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Rawls</span> American political philosopher (1921–2002)

John Bordley Rawls was an American moral, legal and political philosopher in the modern liberal tradition. Rawls has been described as one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Original position</span> Thought experiment used for reasoning about the principles that should structure a society

The original position (OP), often referred to as the veil of ignorance, is a thought experiment often associated with the works of American philosopher John Rawls. In the original position, one is asked to consider which principles they would select for the basic structure of society, but they must select as if they had no knowledge ahead of time what position they would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents them from knowing their ethnicity, social status, gender, and their or anyone else's ideas of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.

<i>A Theory of Justice</i> 1971 book by John Rawls

A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by the philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002) in which the author attempts to provide a moral theory alternative to utilitarianism and that addresses the problem of distributive justice . The theory uses an updated form of Kantian philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls's theory of justice is fully a political theory of justice as opposed to other forms of justice discussed in other disciplines and contexts.

"Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published in 1985. In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious tolerance</span> Allowing or permitting a religion of which one disapproves

Religious tolerance or religioustoleration may signify "no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist, even though the latter are looked on with disapproval as inferior, mistaken, or harmful". Historically, most incidents and writings pertaining to toleration involve the status of minority and dissenting viewpoints in relation to a dominant state religion. However, religion is also sociological, and the practice of toleration has always had a political aspect as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Toleration</span> Allowing or permitting a thing, person, or idea of which one disapproves

Toleration is when one allows or permits an action, idea, object, or person that they dislike or disagree with.

<i>The Open Society and Its Enemies</i> 1945 book by Karl Popper

The Open Society and Its Enemies is a work on political philosophy by the philosopher Karl Popper, in which the author presents a "defence of the open society against its enemies", and offers a critique of theories of teleological historicism, according to which history unfolds inexorably according to universal laws. Popper indicts Plato, Hegel, and Marx for relying on historicism to underpin their political philosophies.

<i>Republic</i> (Plato) Philosophical work by Plato around 375 BC

The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, authored by Plato around 375 BC, concerning justice, the order and character of the just city-state, and the just man. It is Plato's best-known work, and one of the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually and historically.

"Instrumental" and "value rationality" are terms scholars use to identify two ways individuals act in order to optimize their behavior. Instrumental rationality recognizes means that "work" efficiently to achieve ends. Value rationality recognizes ends that are "right", legitimate in themselves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kantian ethics</span> Ethical theory of Immanuel Kant

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant that is based on the notion that "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." It is also associated with the idea that "it is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will." The theory was developed in the context of Enlightenment rationalism. It states that an action can only be moral if it is motivated by a sense of duty, and its maxim may be rationally willed a universal, objective law.

Articles in social and political philosophy include:

Glen Francis Newey was a political philosopher, last acting as a Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Leiden. He previously taught in Brussels at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and until 2011 was Professor in the School of Politics, International Relations & Philosophy at Keele University, Staffordshire, England. He was a prominent member of the "Realist" school of political philosophers which also includes such figures as Bernard Williams, John N. Gray, and Raymond Geuss. Newey also wrote extensively about toleration, casting doubt on whether it remains a coherent political ideal in modern liberal-democratic societies.

Civil discourse is the practice of deliberating about matters of public concern in a way that seeks to expand knowledge and promote understanding. The word "civil" relates directly to civic in the sense of being oriented toward public life, and less directly to civility, in the sense of mere politeness. Discourse is defined as the use of written or spoken communications, similar to having a conversation. Civil discourse includes the practice of deliberating about things that are of concern to society in a way that seeks to help all participants understand each other. It is an essential part of democratic citizenship and is thus a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech, characterized by dialogue that supports the societal good." For civil discourse to truly be effective as a democratic tool, all people need to be heard and share their viewpoints. Civil discourse involves more than just politeness; it involves disagreement without disrespect, seeking common ground, listening beyond preconceptions, and remaining present in dialogues despite deep disagreements. This can help develop better public policies that benefit all people of a society. Members of the U.S. Supreme Court session in 2011 aptly described civil discourse as "robust, honest, frank and constructive dialogue and deliberation that seeks to advance the public interest." Viewpoints are grounded in reason and evidence, adhering to strict guidelines for the appropriate behavior to be practiced. In contrast, uncivil discourse contains direct insults, unwarranted attributions of motive, and open contempt." Civil discourse has its foundation on several key values:

<i>A Critique of Pure Tolerance</i> 1965 book by Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore Jr., and Herbert Marcuse

A Critique of Pure Tolerance is a 1965 book by the philosopher Robert Paul Wolff, the sociologist Barrington Moore Jr., and the philosopher Herbert Marcuse, in which the authors discuss the political role of tolerance.

Karen Stenner is a political scientist specialising in political psychology. Stenner has studied the political activation of authoritarian personality types, and how that activation explains the contemporary success of some authoritarian political figures as well as enduring conflicts between some individuals and the broad tolerance that characterises liberal democracy.

References

  1. ↑ "What Is Brno? Statues in the City" (PDF). Go To Brno. TIC Brno. 2019. Retrieved 10 December 2023.
  2. ↑ Benjamin, Jowett (1991). Plato: The Republic. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN   0-679-73387-6.
  3. 1 2 Popper, Karl (2012) [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. p. 581. ISBN   9781136700323.
  4. ↑ "Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, Chapter 4, Document 33". The Founders' Constitution. University of Chicago Press. 2001 [1801]. Reprint from: Richardson, James D., ed. (1896–1899). A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
  5. 1 2 Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 220. ISBN   978-0-674-00078-0.
  6. ↑ Ding, John Zijiang (December 2014). "Introduction: Pluralistic and Multicultural Reexaminations of Tolerance/Toleration" (PDF). Journal of East-West Thought. 4 (4). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 April 2022. Retrieved 17 August 2017.
  7. ↑ Walzer, Michael (1997). On Toleration . New Haven: Yale University Press. pp.  80–81. ISBN   978-0-300-07600-4.
  8. ↑ King, Preston T. (1976). Toleration. Routledge. pp. 44–54. ISBN   9780714644141.
  9. 1 2 3 Forst, Rainer (Fall 2017). Toleration. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  10. ↑ Fish, Stanley (1997). "Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds between Church and State". Columbia Law Review. 97 (8): 2255–2333. doi:10.2307/1123373. ISSN   0010-1958. JSTOR   1123373.
  11. ↑ Zunger, Yonatan (2 January 2017). "Tolerance is not a moral precept". Medium . Extra News Feed. Archived from the original on 22 March 2023. Retrieved 26 July 2024. [Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
  12. ↑ Lührmann, Anna. "Disrupting the autocratization sequence: towards democratic resilience." Resilience of Democracy. Routledge, 2023. 149-171.
  13. ↑ Cohen-Almagor, Raphael (1994). "Popper's Paradox of Tolerance and Its Modification". The Boundaries of Liberty and Tolerance: The Struggle Against Kahanism in Israel. University Press of Florida. p. 25. ISBN   9780813012582.
  14. ↑ Rosenfeld, Michel (April 1987). "Review: Extremist Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance". Harvard Law Review . 100 (6): 1457–1481. doi:10.2307/1341168. JSTOR   1341168.
  15. ↑ Lechtholz-Zey, Jacqueline. "Laws Banning Holocaust Denial". Genocide Prevention Now. Archived from the original on 21 August 2010.
  16. ↑ Kahn, Robert A. "Holocaust Denial". MTSU.edu. Retrieved 14 June 2020.
  17. ↑ Habermas, Jürgen (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Polity Press. p. 106. The means of reaching agreement are repeatedly thrust aside by the instruments of force.
  18. ↑ Apel, Karl-Otto (1996). Selected Essays: Ethics and the Theory of Rationality. Humanities Press International. pp. 210–211.
  19. 1 2 Aguiar, Fernando; Parravano, Antonio (2013). "Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks". Journal of Conflict Resolution. doi:10.1177/0022002713498708. S2CID   146237656.
  20. ↑ Heider, Fritz (1946). "Attitudes and Cognitive Organization". Journal of Psychology. 21: 107–112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275. PMID   21010780.
  21. ↑ Heider, Fritz (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Psychology Press. ISBN   9780898592825.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.