Tolerance is widely regarded as a necessary component of a functional, pluralistic society, representing a willingness to allow for opinions and behaviors that one may dislike or disagree with. This broad acceptance allows diverse populations to coexist without constant conflict. However, this virtue faces a philosophical challenge known as the paradox of tolerance. The paradox suggests that extending unconditional tolerance can ultimately become self-defeating, exploring the tension when a tolerant system encounters ideologies whose goal is the destruction of tolerance itself.
Defining the Core Conflict
The paradox describes societal self-destruction that occurs when a society fails to defend its foundational principle of openness. If a tolerant community permits the unhindered expression and organization of groups that are explicitly intolerant, those groups exploit the freedoms they are granted. They use platforms like freedom of speech and assembly to spread their message, recruit followers, and erode the democratic structures that allowed them to flourish.
The core conflict forces a difficult choice: maintain unlimited tolerance and risk the eventual takeover by intolerant forces, or act with intolerance toward the intolerant to preserve the tolerant society. Suppressing the intolerant means the tolerant society must itself employ a form of censorship or restriction, thereby compromising its own principle of absolute tolerance. This dilemma is the self-contradictory loop at the heart of the paradox: to save tolerance, one must become intolerant of those who seek its demise.
Karl Popper’s Formulation
The concept was formally articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper observed that unlimited tolerance must inevitably lead to its disappearance because the intolerant will not be constrained by the rational arguments that guide the tolerant. If a tolerant society is not prepared to defend itself against the onslaught of intolerance, the tolerant people will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Popper made a significant qualification, stating that suppression should not be the immediate response. He suggested that as long as the intolerant can be countered effectively by rational argument and public opinion, suppression would be unwise. The right to suppress the intolerant, even by force, should only be claimed if they abandon rational discourse and advocate for the use of physical force or violence instead of debate. This caveat emphasizes preventing the use of free expression to dismantle the mechanisms of free expression itself.
Establishing the Limits of Tolerance
Addressing the paradox requires establishing a clear boundary between acceptable expression and intolerable threat, a task that presents a profound philosophical challenge. The essential distinction lies between tolerating a person’s ideas and tolerating actions or speech that directly incite harm or the destruction of democratic systems. This involves determining the precise threshold where an intolerant philosophy ceases to be a disagreeable viewpoint and transforms into a tangible danger to the established order. The difficulty arises because defending a tolerant system necessitates restricting the freedom of those who use that freedom to advocate for its overthrow.
The distinction often revolves around the nature of the expression, separating hateful thought from the incitement to persecution or violence. For example, a society may tolerate the private holding of an intolerant belief, but it must decide at what point the public expression of that belief becomes an actionable violation of the social contract. John Rawls, a later philosopher, suggested that a society must limit the freedoms of the intolerant only when their ideologies and actions threaten the liberties and security of the tolerant population. The philosophical and ethical difficulty is that setting this boundary requires the tolerant society to pass judgment on which expression crosses the line, a judgment that can be perceived as an act of intolerance itself.
Modern Applications
The tension described by the paradox is constantly replayed in modern society, especially in the context of digital communication and political polarization. Discussions around hate speech, for example, directly invoke the paradox, asking whether the protection of free expression should extend to rhetoric that targets and marginalizes specific groups, creating an atmosphere of hostility that undermines their ability to participate equally in society. Societies must weigh the risk of suppressing speech against the very real impact of that speech on vulnerable populations.
The regulation of extremist groups in democracies presents a similar challenge, as these groups often operate under the umbrella of legal political organization while advocating for the end of democratic institutions. Online platforms, such as social media, have made this problem especially acute by providing vast, unregulated spaces where intolerant philosophies can be distributed widely and rapidly. Platform moderators are continuously forced to decide where the line is drawn between protecting freedom of expression and preventing the proliferation of content that actively organizes or incites attacks against tolerance. The application of the paradox in these modern scenarios highlights the ongoing need for a tolerant society to define and enforce its own defensive boundaries.