The Paradox of Tolerance

[Sunstone]

"Ultima ratio regum". -- [The] last argument of kings. (A phrase Louis XIV had stamped on every cannon in his arsenal.)


Karl Popper was a philosopher who argued that the possibility of falsification was a key requirement of scientific hypotheses -- thus fondly endearing himself to every creationist who ever lived. Yet, beyond that, he also wrote about what he called, "The Paradox of Tolerance".

Most us are somewhat familiar with the Paradox in the sense that most of us have heard some relatively intolerant person whine about us being "hypocritical" because we do not, "tolerate his or her intolerance". It can be a pretty common accusation in some quarters -- especially if you know @Terese..

But it goes a bit beyond that. Popper argued (in 1945) that, in order to maintain its existence, a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance:

Less well known 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 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. --- The Open Society and its Enemies.​

Please note here Popper's notion that (1) intolerance should first be opposed by rational means, and (2) opposed by some means of force only if both those rational means proved insufficient to contain the mess, and the mess was an existential threat to the society -- or at least, to its "open" nature.

Although Popper does not out and out state it in the above paragraph, his logic strongly implies the conclusion that a tolerant society has an ultimate right to impose even the gravest of penalties (death) if the threat is "severe" enough. Cannon are the final argument, not merely of kings, but of open societies, too.

Last, folks might wish to note Popper's reference to intolerant organizations that "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive". I would emphasize: Rational argument is arguably the best basis for reaching majority consensus in an "open" society since, by its very nature, it does not actually force anyone to heed it.

However, there is a paradox here, as well. If enough people refuse -- for whatever reason -- to heed rational argument, then some other means must be employed to unite people, least the society devolve into anarchy. So while rational argument implies the liberty to ignore it, the liberty to ignore it can destroy the ability of a society to make use of it.

That appears to me to be happening today.

Comments? Questions? Veiled references to the cut of my jib? Irrational denunciations of my political declaration of solidarity with our cousins, the bonobo?

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Ah this classic paradox. Be tolerant to the tolerant and intolerant to the intolerant, what else is there?

 

[Sunstone]

Ah this classic paradox. Be tolerant to the tolerant and intolerant to the intolerant, what else is there?

Mainly how far you can go in suppressing intolerance, and what conditions would justify it.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

Mainly how far you can go in suppressing intolerance, and what conditions would justify it.

I think there is too much of a prescribed moral notion to the paradox personally. Every society sets up it's own moral guidelines through it's laws, making intolerance and tolerance positive or negative depending on the situational context but I don't support moral relativism. I think tolerance fails and becomes something entirely different when it allows or turns it's head when encountering intolerance of others.

Ultimately it's a paradox of language more than principle.

 

[Sunstone]

Ultimately it's a paradox of language more than principle.

I'm not following you there. Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Stevicus]

"Ultima ratio regum". -- [The] last argument of kings. (A phrase Louis XIV had stamped on every cannon in his arsenal.)


Karl Popper was a philosopher who argued that the possibility of falsification was a key requirement of scientific hypotheses -- thus fondly endearing himself to every creationist who ever lived. Yet, beyond that, he also wrote about what he called, "The Paradox of Tolerance".

Most us are somewhat familiar with the Paradox in the sense that most of us have heard some relatively intolerant person whine about us being "hypocritical" because we do not, "tolerate his or her intolerance". It can be a pretty common accusation in some quarters -- especially if you know @Terese..

But it goes a bit beyond that. Popper argued (in 1945) that, in order to maintain its existence, a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance:

Less well known 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 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. --- The Open Society and its Enemies.​

Please note here Popper's notion that (1) intolerance should first be opposed by rational means, and (2) opposed by some means of force only if both those rational means proved insufficient to contain the mess, and the mess was an existential threat to the society -- or at least, to its "open" nature.

Although Popper does not out and out state it in the above paragraph, his logic strongly implies the conclusion that a tolerant society has an ultimate right to impose even the gravest of penalties (death) if the threat is "severe" enough. Cannon are the final argument, not merely of kings, but of open societies, too.

Last, folks might wish to note Popper's reference to intolerant organizations that "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive". I would emphasize: Rational argument is arguably the best basis for reaching majority consensus in an "open" society since, by its very nature, it does not actually force anyone to heed it.

However, there is a paradox here, as well. If enough people refuse -- for whatever reason -- to heed rational argument, then some other means must be employed to unite people, least the society devolve into anarchy. So while rational argument implies the liberty to ignore it, the liberty to ignore it can destroy the ability of a society to make use of it.

That appears to me to be happening today.

Comments? Questions? Veiled references to the cut of my jib? Irrational denunciations of my political declaration of solidarity with our cousins, the bonobo?

I suppose a lot of it would depend on how one defines "intolerance," along with who is doing it. Intolerance by government or those at a similar level must never be tolerated. It also depends on the types of intolerance one is addressing. If society says that some forms of intolerance are bad, but other forms of intolerance are part of the American way of life (such as class intolerance and contempt for workers), then it's not really going to work over the long haul.

What I see happening a lot these days is that, under the guise of being "intolerant to intolerance," some people feel that gives them license to condemn entire sub-cultures, geographical regions, and social classes of whole groups of people. That's where the exercise has failed in recent decades. (A common example might be someone saying "those redneck hillbillies who support Trump." They're not really calling out Trump supporters as much as ostracizing and alienating an entire sub-culture of America, and this is what is wrong.)

Some who consider themselves part of an oppressed group feel they can attack or be intolerant of anyone they see as part of the oppressor group just on that basis alone, which is also considered being "intolerant to intolerance" - even if they're attacking an individual who may not be intolerant at all. Feminists do this a lot when they attack their symbolic whipping boy, the "white male," even though most feminists are white and come from similarly privileged backgrounds. Yet, they still get a pass, and such attacks are considered both politically correct and within the purview of being "intolerant to intolerance." Yet, it is hypocritical, no matter if anyone whines about it or not.

This has been going on for decades, and it's these kinds of inconsistencies and logical flaws which do not escape notice. If diminishing returns are setting in and more people are "refusing to listen," this is likely the reason why.

 

[idav]

"Ultima ratio regum". -- [The] last argument of kings. (A phrase Louis XIV had stamped on every cannon in his arsenal.)


Karl Popper was a philosopher who argued that the possibility of falsification was a key requirement of scientific hypotheses -- thus fondly endearing himself to every creationist who ever lived. Yet, beyond that, he also wrote about what he called, "The Paradox of Tolerance".

Most us are somewhat familiar with the Paradox in the sense that most of us have heard some relatively intolerant person whine about us being "hypocritical" because we do not, "tolerate his or her intolerance". It can be a pretty common accusation in some quarters -- especially if you know @Terese..

But it goes a bit beyond that. Popper argued (in 1945) that, in order to maintain its existence, a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance:

Less well known 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 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. --- The Open Society and its Enemies.​

Please note here Popper's notion that (1) intolerance should first be opposed by rational means, and (2) opposed by some means of force only if both those rational means proved insufficient to contain the mess, and the mess was an existential threat to the society -- or at least, to its "open" nature.

Although Popper does not out and out state it in the above paragraph, his logic strongly implies the conclusion that a tolerant society has an ultimate right to impose even the gravest of penalties (death) if the threat is "severe" enough. Cannon are the final argument, not merely of kings, but of open societies, too.

Last, folks might wish to note Popper's reference to intolerant organizations that "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive". I would emphasize: Rational argument is arguably the best basis for reaching majority consensus in an "open" society since, by its very nature, it does not actually force anyone to heed it.

However, there is a paradox here, as well. If enough people refuse -- for whatever reason -- to heed rational argument, then some other means must be employed to unite people, least the society devolve into anarchy. So while rational argument implies the liberty to ignore it, the liberty to ignore it can destroy the ability of a society to make use of it.

That appears to me to be happening today.

Comments? Questions? Veiled references to the cut of my jib? Irrational denunciations of my political declaration of solidarity with our cousins, the bonobo?

I think a lot of times people conflate the idea of allowing intolerance and allowing someone to be a jerk, they are not the same thing but may overlap in areas. Tolerance simply defined as being tolerant of other views cultures classes religions, intolerance is something different from just simple bullying. Intolerance is an idea of wanting actual suppression of certain groups. People can allow confrontation without being tolerant of intolerance. It’s like drawing the line where difference of opinion is allowed but not to the point of suppressing a groups life liberty and happiness. If that goes unchecked that can certainly lead to a war of suppressing the oppressors like what happened with the US civil war and many civil rights movements.

 

[fantome profane]

It has been said that anything taken to the extreme turns into its own opposite.

That is what we see here. Extreme tolerance, depending on how that is understood, would either (a) suppress anything that seems like it might be even slightly intolerant thus becoming intolerant itself or (b) accept all forms of intolerance thus allowing intolerance to thrive.

This is why we struggle to find balance and moderation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Ultima ratio regum". -- [The] last argument of kings. (A phrase Louis XIV had stamped on every cannon in his arsenal.)


Karl Popper was a philosopher who argued that the possibility of falsification was a key requirement of scientific hypotheses -- thus fondly endearing himself to every creationist who ever lived. Yet, beyond that, he also wrote about what he called, "The Paradox of Tolerance".

Most us are somewhat familiar with the Paradox in the sense that most of us have heard some relatively intolerant person whine about us being "hypocritical" because we do not, "tolerate his or her intolerance". It can be a pretty common accusation in some quarters -- especially if you know @Terese..

But it goes a bit beyond that. Popper argued (in 1945) that, in order to maintain its existence, a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance:

Less well known 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 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. --- The Open Society and its Enemies.​

Please note here Popper's notion that (1) intolerance should first be opposed by rational means, and (2) opposed by some means of force only if both those rational means proved insufficient to contain the mess, and the mess was an existential threat to the society -- or at least, to its "open" nature.

Although Popper does not out and out state it in the above paragraph, his logic strongly implies the conclusion that a tolerant society has an ultimate right to impose even the gravest of penalties (death) if the threat is "severe" enough. Cannon are the final argument, not merely of kings, but of open societies, too.

Last, folks might wish to note Popper's reference to intolerant organizations that "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive". I would emphasize: Rational argument is arguably the best basis for reaching majority consensus in an "open" society since, by its very nature, it does not actually force anyone to heed it.

However, there is a paradox here, as well. If enough people refuse -- for whatever reason -- to heed rational argument, then some other means must be employed to unite people, least the society devolve into anarchy. So while rational argument implies the liberty to ignore it, the liberty to ignore it can destroy the ability of a society to make use of it.

That appears to me to be happening today.

Comments? Questions? Veiled references to the cut of my jib? Irrational denunciations of my political declaration of solidarity with our cousins, the bonobo?

I don't see it as that much of a paradox, really. It's like how being fast around a racetrack involves using your brakes.