Paradox of tolerance
Introduction "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''' states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
Formulation Preston King describes tolerance as occurring when one objects to but voluntarily endures certain acts, ideas, organisations and identities. This involves two components:# 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.# 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. 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.
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. A similar solution has been proposed by describing tolerance as a social contract, wherein the intolerant have violated the terms of the social contract and are thereby not subject to its protection.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: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. 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.
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 allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which that freedom relies is paradoxical. 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." 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, while the US has ruled that such materials are protected by the principle of freedom of speech and cannot be restricted, except when endorsements of violence or other illegal activities are made explicit.Criticism of violent intolerance as a response to intolerant speech is characteristic of  as developed by Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel.
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.This dilemma has been considered by Fernando Aguiar and Antonio Parravano in ''Tolerating the Intolerant: Homophily, Intolerance, and Segregation in Social Balanced Networks'', modeling a community of individuals whose relationships are governed by a modified form of the Heider balance theory.
History 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 autocratic rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" is preferable to the tyranny of majority rule.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.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. "John Rawls argued for a view in ''A Theory of Justice'' in which, outside of exceptional circumstances, a just society must tolerate intolerance.Philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 tome ''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. "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".
See also * ''A Critique of Pure Tolerance''* ''Communist Party of Germany v. the Federal Republic of Germany''* ''Streitbare Demokratie''* Voluntary slavery
References
Further reading *****