Paradox of tolerance

[kvnchrist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.^[1]

"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."

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "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."^[2]

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

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.^[1]

 

 

ref: Walzer, Michael, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80-81 ISBN 0-300-07600-2

 

This entire idea has had me shaking my head everytime I think about it.

 

 

 

 

referance Walzer, Michael, On Toleration, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) pp. 80-81 ISBN 0-300-07600-2

[JimboUK]

 

most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant

 

Many of those who demand tolerance of others show little themselves, you only have to look at the liberal left in the UK.

[Vagrant0]

The very notion that tolerance is something you can impress on others is flawed. Even the premise of tolerance is arguably flawed. Tolerance is not acceptance, it is simply being indifferent enough that you ignore it. It is the behavior of acknowledging that an inequality exists but doing nothing to resolve that inequality. Meanwhile "intolerant" people get attacked for even bringing it up, or reminding others of that inequality because the ideas are usually uncomfortable and nobody wants to even touch the subject. You don't have to learn or empathize to be tolerant, you don't have to consider anyone else's situation other than your own, you just have to pretend that everything is okay and will sort itself out on its own.

 

Instead of being intolerant of intolerance, we should instead be intolerant of ignorance and bigotry.

[Aurielius]

One of the problems that I see is who exactly gets to define 'intolerant'. It seems that one of the tactics of the PC brigade is define all views contrary to their own as intolerant. In universities which should be the test bed of opposing ideas..they have restricted real free speech to tiny 'free speech' zones, which is rather droll because I thought the entire country was a free speech zone. There are two choices: We can muzzle speech that is not in agreement with the 'tyranny of the majority', which simply forces them underground where they cannot be observed or we can let the nimrods spout off and be aware of potential dangers. Tolerance is not acceptance, I may have to tolerate you but willing acceptance..that's my prerogative.

[HeyYou]

And how about the intolerance of the minority, forcing their views on the majority, all in the name of 'tolerance'? That's one of my personal favorites.......

[Vagrant0]

And how about the intolerance of the minority, forcing their views on the majority, all in the name of 'tolerance'? That's one of my personal favorites.......

The premise of tolerance usually works in the other direction, whereby the majority has to have 'tolerance' of the differences of the minority. People who are of the majority usually aren't subject to 'intolerance' since their actions and values are often the norm. It's a problem of modern civilization, where people are given the option of not assimilating to the dominant culture or face harassment or threat like the way things were done before when differing cultural groups were forced to cohabitate.

 

There really aren't many ways to handle a situation of culture clash... Either the more powerful culture accepts and makes accommodations, or they forcibly impress their beliefs onto the weaker (or just commit genocide). Which method is best is a matter of argument.

[HeyYou]

 

And how about the intolerance of the minority, forcing their views on the majority, all in the name of 'tolerance'? That's one of my personal favorites.......

The premise of tolerance usually works in the other direction, whereby the majority has to have 'tolerance' of the differences of the minority. People who are of the majority usually aren't subject to 'intolerance' since their actions and values are often the norm. It's a problem of modern civilization, where people are given the option of not assimilating to the dominant culture or face harassment or threat like the way things were done before when differing cultural groups were forced to cohabitate.

 

There really aren't many ways to handle a situation of culture clash... Either the more powerful culture accepts and makes accommodations, or they forcibly impress their beliefs onto the weaker (or just commit genocide). Which method is best is a matter of argument.

 

"Usually". Yeah, in a few instances though, it's a tad backwards.

 

I see it as a precursor to societal collapse. :)

[TRoaches]

One of the problems that I see is who exactly gets to define 'intolerant'

This is precisely why "political correctness" really is a modern form of modern political tyranny, a method by which those in power can control the population. It sounds clever enough: we will discourage bad things like bigotry and eventually they will disappear! The problem is that the definition of bigotry changes over time and from person to person. It is an arbitrary human construct built, not from logic, but from human emotion. Some forms of hatred are perfectly acceptable (e.g. I hate Nazis!) and others are considered despicable. It is so far removed from logic that even objectively observable facts and legitimate scientific theories can be branded as political heresy and their advocates silenced.

Most people look back on the witch hunts carried out in the past by the church and agree that they were absurd, even evil. Not nearly as many see the blatant parallels between those witch hunts and the ones that we have today. The new gospel is tolerance and social justice, and the new heresy is anything that deviates from that gospel. The old church ladies who gossiped about which of their neighbors was the least pious or most scandalous have been replaced by "social justice warriors" who will hunt down your employer and demand that you be fired from your job because you dared to say something that, to their ears, sounded intolerably intolerant. In the old days a person who did something heretical would be forced to confess and made to do some kind of penance. If they refused to confess they were tortured or jailed. Now you are forced to apologize (a form of confession) and if you refuse you will be punished through loss of employment or other opportunity.

This is the great paradox at work: The more "tolerant" we seem to become as a society the less tolerant we really are. Tolerance, as it is used in modern jargon, is a code word for homogeneity, which is the opposite of diversity. Its all very Orwellian use of language to obscure what is really happening.

Consider the recent stories about bakeries refusing to make particular types of cakes. If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs they are branded as intolerant and forced to go to government re-education (not a joke, really happened). If another baker refused to bake, for example, a confederate flag cake there is no backlash, and they may even be heralded as heroes of tolerance. No logic to be found, just emotion. One is bad, the other is good, and anyone who disagrees is just a bigot, and they can rest assured that they will be "held accountable" for their beliefs at the next Two Minutes Hate session to be held on Twitter and covered by the Daily Show.

[HeyYou]

 

One of the problems that I see is who exactly gets to define 'intolerant'

This is precisely why "political correctness" really is a modern form of modern political tyranny, a method by which those in power can control the population. It sounds clever enough: we will discourage bad things like bigotry and eventually they will disappear! The problem is that the definition of bigotry changes over time and from person to person. It is an arbitrary human construct built, not from logic, but from human emotion. Some forms of hatred are perfectly acceptable (e.g. I hate Nazis!) and others are considered despicable. It is so far removed from logic that even objectively observable facts and legitimate scientific theories can be branded as political heresy and their advocates silenced.

Most people look back on the witch hunts carried out in the past by the church and agree that they were absurd, even evil. Not nearly as many see the blatant parallels between those witch hunts and the ones that we have today. The new gospel is tolerance and social justice, and the new heresy is anything that deviates from that gospel. The old church ladies who gossiped about which of their neighbors was the least pious or most scandalous have been replaced by "social justice warriors" who will hunt down your employer and demand that you be fired from your job because you dared to say something that, to their ears, sounded intolerably intolerant. In the old days a person who did something heretical would be forced to confess and made to do some kind of penance. If they refused to confess they were tortured or jailed. Now you are forced to apologize (a form of confession) and if you refuse you will be punished through loss of employment or other opportunity.

This is the great paradox at work: The more "tolerant" we seem to become as a society the less tolerant we really are. Tolerance, as it is used in modern jargon, is a code word for homogeneity, which is the opposite of diversity. Its all very Orwellian use of language to obscure what is really happening.

Consider the recent stories about bakeries refusing to make particular types of cakes. If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs they are branded as intolerant and forced to go to government re-education (not a joke, really happened). If another baker refused to bake, for example, a confederate flag cake there is no backlash, and they may even be heralded as heroes of tolerance. No logic to be found, just emotion. One is bad, the other is good, and anyone who disagrees is just a bigot, and they can rest assured that they will be "held accountable" for their beliefs at the next Two Minutes Hate session to be held on Twitter and covered by the Daily Show.

 

Short version: Our society is farking stupid.

 

Problem is, I have seen the pendulum swinging in this direction for a while now, and it is only picking up speed...... I am real curious just how far it is going to get before something really serious happens......

 

Of course, the stupidity levels our government (USA) seems to be able to generate have been WELL off the scale for a while now....... I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when the populace follows suit.

[Beriallord]

Hypothetical, you got a person or a group who doesn't wish to be around "insert group here", whoever that may be, and some might call that ignorance and bigotry, and maybe it is, but that person should be free to choose to be that way if they wish. Some countries have made people into criminals who are bigoted and racist. Those countries are not free societies. In some countries in Europe, you can go to jail for saying something "insensitive" about a specific group on facebook. I don't have a problem with facebook banning those people, but I do have major issues with charging people criminally for those comments.

 

There is a refugee crisis in Europe, and I'm sure a lot of people are wondering why its their country's responsibility to take in all these people when its not beneficial for their country, or citizens? Many of the nations those refugees are coming from like Syria, Libya and Iraq were destabilized by US foreign policy. Why does Europe have to bear the consequences? Why can't some other countries in the region take them? Couldn't we instead offer aid to countries in the region to take those refugees rather than swamp them at our borders? Why isn't Turkey taking more refugees? They'd have more in commmon culturally and societally with Syrians for example, than Syrians would with Europeans, and the transition would be easier for everybody involved. I'm sure some nations could pitch in and give Turkey a pool of money to use towards assisting Syrian refugees. Many of them come to western countries and have a complete culture shock because things are drastically different. This creates problems not only for those refugees, but the citizenry and governments as well. The point is, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for refusing to accept refugees that doesn't involve being bigoted. The left doesn't see things that way. They're purely emotion driven.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Beriallord