The Paradox of Tolerance

Today I want to share a feel-good idea with dangerous implications from the world of philosophy. It’s called the Paradox of Tolerance. First proposed by Karl Popper in 1945, this is the idea that we must limit the amount of intolerance we are willing to tolerate. In his own words, “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.”

Strong language on this one, kind of like 1940s clickbait. And I’m guessing we all want to believe that we are tolerant and the people and beliefs we disagree with are intolerant. So let’s take a closer look at this paradox. Let’s play out what happens when two opposing groups believe that they are being tolerant and the other side is being intolerant. Do they both become intolerant toward each other in an attempt to preserve tolerance? I think we can say with some confidence that that doesn’t work out for anyone.

Popper had his own idea of how this whole thing works out. He suggested that the first line of defense against intolerance was rational argument and public opinion; rather than suppressing intolerance, rational argument and public opinion could be used to keep it in check. If that didn’t work, however, and if the intolerant resorted to violence, then the intolerance should no longer be tolerated and should be treated as criminal.

So really, this is not that different than the “It’s ok to punch Nazi skinheads in the face” thing, a concept that emerged from the 1980s punk and hardcore scene. For those of you who aren’t familiar: the original punk and hardcore scene was very much about building community and opposing fascism, and then they had this moment where neo-Nazi skinheads started showing up both threatening violence and being violent. The eventual consensus was, basically, the only way to deal with this kind of intolerant behavior was to keep the Nazis out and if that wasn’t possible and they were being violent, then to punch them in the face. Karl Popper, back in 1945, was kind of saying the same thing.

My take is this: the Paradox of Tolerance isn’t just about tolerance of intolerance, it’s about what to do about ideologically-motivated violence. And I want to be clear that no one is talking about emotional or intellectual violence here, we’re talking about direct physical violence.

We know that meeting violence with violence is harmful and dangerous. We also know from historical precedent that tolerating too much of a bad thing can shift all of society toward that bad thing. There are no easy answers here.

All we can do is can say with some clarity that intolerance of intolerance is the crux of this paradox, it is an unsolvable problem, and yet each of us can still take thoughtful action in the world immediately around us. Something like “punch Nazis in the face” is probably not the right answer for today’s world, but it’s small actions over time that reveal what IS the right answer and it’s small actions over time that ultimately develop into shared standards for what effective tolerance looks like. Thanks for listening.

Source: https://www.gq.com/story/punks-and-nazis-oral-history