Many years ago, the famous philosopher Kark Popper created what has been called the “Paradox of Tolerance.”
Karl Popper wrote that, “if we want a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance”. This is known as the “Paradox of Tolerance”, which is the idea that a society must be intolerant of intolerance in order to maintain tolerance. As with any paradox, this is very confusing.
“Popper explained that unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance. He said that a tolerant society should be prepared to defend itself against intolerant views, and that the right to suppress intolerant views should be claimed if necessary. However, he also said that suppressing intolerant views through force is unwise unless they are unwilling to engage in rational argument.” —- From Search Labs | AI Overview
Recently, I came across a rather long academic article which I think supports a justification for Popper’s viewpoint. Albeit I think this article provides a more nuanced explanation for being intolerant of intolerance. I have decided to post this article since I think the times demand that we understand this perspective. I believe it is a focal point worth fighting for. You may disagree but the analogy of how Hitler took power is I think quite relevant and worth thinking about. Here in its unabridged form is the entire article. I would love to hear what you think, so please leave a comment or two.
What are the Limits of Toleration? By Tamar Lagurashvili
University of Tartu, Institute of Government and Politics, Graduate Student
Introduction
Tolerance is considered to be one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies, thus having acquired different implications across the countries, which ultimately leads to the ambiguity of the concept itself. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, we should clearly define what is meant in tolerance and why it is crucial not to mix this term with the words having similar connotations. Yossi Nehushtan (2007:5) offers an obvious distinction between the value-based liberal tolerance and rather neutral tolerance, which finds more similarities with indifference rather with toleration itself. Concerning its linguistic origin, author refers to the Latin word tolerabilis, which means to lift an object, clearly implying to the burden to be carried by one, who tolerates certain unacceptable behavior, act or opinion. Within this context, we should refer to Michael Sandel (1996), who differentiates liberal non-judgmental toleration from judgmental toleration. While looking closely at these concepts, we can see that in the case of former, person (tolerant) tolerates certain opinion, act or behavior without judgmental evaluation simply because he does not care or he respects others’ privacy and thus, refrains from any kinds of interference. Albeit that, refraining from interfering in other people’s private life is an integral part of modern liberalism, definition provided above does not correspond with the tenets of tolerance.
As Heywood (2015:251) rightly mentions, tolerance should be distinguished from permissiveness, indifference and indulgence, since being tolerant inherently implies to the fact that a tolerant person faces moral difficulties to put up with certain behavior or act, but does so for the sake of different reasons. Being tolerant means that a person has to impose certain restrictions on him/herself in order to avoid to openly interfere in others’ life when there is something to be disliked, disparaged or disapproved. Toleration with its basic definition can be considered as truly moral value, supporting a peaceful coexistence of the different individuals, but whether there are certain cases, where intolerance is morally/pragmatically justified is major concern of this paper.
Why do we tolerate?
Rainer Frost (2008:79-82) while touching Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive theory of Toleration, talks about three different reasons or factors, which trigger toleration among majority and minority groups. First he mentions permission conception, according to which the majority gives minority a right to live according to their customs, but toleration is possible when the “difference” of minority is contained to certain limits and does not cross the borders of private life. As an early and most vivid example of permission conception Frost names the Nantes Edict of 1598, which granted the Calvinist Protestants of France substantial rights in private as well as in public spheres.
Second way of toleration is coexistence concept, which resembles to pragmatic tolerance to be discussed bit later. In this case, avoiding conflict and paving way towards peaceful coexistence is what matters, but unlike the previous situation, here we face not the relation between the ruling majority and minority, but rather two groups wielding equal powers, thus requiring making some concessions for the sake of preventing clash of interests. If we attempt to apply this concept to real life, we can think of Somalia, who has been torn apart by three different clans ruling in three regions of Somalia, therefore hindering country’s normal development. Bearing in mind that Somalia is characterized by distinctive homogeneity (Guardian Africa: 2015), one can assume that it is not different beliefs and traditions, which impede toleration among the clans, but the economic benefits they can reap from the permanent state of conflict.
Third conception is based on the principle of respect, thus implying to the fact that toleration requires acknowledging the fact that everyone is equal and deserves equal political and legal rights.
As one can see Frost’s approach towards toleration is rather a combination of pragmatic and moral values, since it fosters cooperation between majority and minority and upholds egalitarian values. Kristie McClure (1990:361-391) puts forward John Rawls’s understanding of toleration within his notion of “ justice as fairness”, according to which toleration carries distinctively pragmatic connotation, namely the one of social conditions, which not only helped to put an end to the religious wars in Europe, but to transform religious toleration into certain form of social practice. John Locke’s work Letter Concerning Toleration is deemed to be a milestone in understanding the tenets of toleration. Locke comes from the assumption that we are all created by God and thus, our “Highest Obligation” should rest on the understanding of others’ differences for the sake of our moral obligation and love (Frost 2008). Later on Locke argues about the possible relation between the tolerant and one to be tolerated, excluding the possibility to give superiority to any church, since it will lead to persecution and monopolization of power.
One can consider that by proposing to give each and every church equal power as searching for the only true religion is futile and will exacerbate conflict between different religious groups, Locke somehow offers the coexistence concept elaborated earlier. Even though toleration is a God-given virtue, Locke still talks about its possible limits, which in his case is restricted to two kinds of groups: “A church that assumes the power of being able to excommunicate a king or that claims political and religious authority over its members…” and the atheists, as: ”They are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God” (Frost: 91-92).
Nehushtan, like Frost points out three different reasons of why people generally tolerate: tolerance as right, pragmatic tolerance and tolerance out of mercy. First he touches upon tolerance from the standpoint of rights and argues that no matter how repulsive person’s behavior or opinion can be, harm inflicted to that person cannot be justified on the grounds of personal autonomy developed by Joseph Raz . Author stresses particular importance on the pragmatic side of toleration and develops the ideas very similar to Frost with an additional insight of reciprocity and proportionality, which will be discussed later on. His third point argues that people with physical and/or mental disabilities might be exposed to more toleration than usual, regardless their repulsive behavior.
Can toleration be limited?
Tolerance with its underlying principles and applicability clearly upholds democratic values and strengthens personal autonomy, which constitutes one of the cornerstones of the liberal democracies. Albeit that tolerance is widely considered as “moral virtue”, would we go further and suggest that tolerance can be applied to each and every circumstance regardless the fact who should be tolerated? This question is examined in the works of many political scientists, including Andrew Heywood, who even though stresses importance of the political pluralism, openly talks about those political parties, which are clearly distinguished with hate speech and bigotry, thus threatening the democratic values, should not be tolerated and permitted to the political spectrum, since as author suggests: ”toleration is not granted automatically, it has to be earned” (Heywood: 256).
I would suggest that reciprocity, as a crucial feature of toleration substantively defines the nature of its applicability, which means that in certain exceptions, where we have to deal with a massive surge of intolerance, clearly undermining the democratic values and endangering the sovereignty of state, toleration should be limited. Heywood calls an example of Nazi Germany, where after the failure of Munich Putsch, Hitler and his collaborators were still allowed to pursuit their political activities legally, which ultimately led to the disastrous consequences. It seems that reciprocity plays an integral part in understanding the limitations of tolerance, so clearly expressed in the work of Nehushtan, who also talks about proportionality, which mainly focuses on the costs and benefits of limiting toleration. We could start by recalling Rawls, who suggests that:” it seems that an intolerant sect has no title to complain when it is denied an equal liberty”( Rawls 1999:190). While analyzing Rawls’s words, we can assume that those intolerant groups, which openly threaten state sovereignty and democratic values in general, should not be treated in a tolerant manner, but how can intolerance be expressed when it comes to politics? Should we ban such intolerant political parties and prevent them from entering parliament?
Should we hold a peaceful campaign, during which we will expose true information about the intolerant party’s real intentions and the scope of possible harm in case of proliferation the intolerant ideas? Deciding upon the methods of expressing intolerance is rather individual and as Nehushten suggests, is rooted in the principle of proportionality. According to the author, while working on the scope of intolerance, one should take into account the nature of intolerance and the response towards it, since if an act of intolerance takes place in parliament for example, an intolerant response should be formulated within the realm of politics and not in the private life. On the other hand, amount and nature of intolerant response should not exceed the original intolerance and what is of core importance- intolerant response should inflict minimal harm to the democratic values and human rights, because otherwise we will face counter-productivity. Fintan O’Toole (1997:346) raises another interesting question concerning the limits of tolerance based on assumption that excessive freedom of certain group might threaten collective good, thus requiring to impose certain restrictions on that group’s excessive liberty. Therefore, certain amount of intolerance towards the groups, who wield the power in order to prevent them from abusing/manipulating this power, is justified.
Nevertheless, author calls an example of Bernard Shaw’s criticism of the Christian Golden Rule (according to which we should treat others as we would like to be treated), providing the heterogeneous nature of the society, where what one person considers benign for him/herself, might be perceived as totally evil by other. Author suggests that even though there might be a society with relatively homogeneous religious beliefs, the applicability and interpretation of the customs and beliefs might considerably vary (O’Toole: 347). Therefore, we should not expect that toleration will be upheld as universal value across different societies, but what author explicitly refers to is the nature of harm inflicted by the intolerant groups, which morally and pragmatically justifies adequate intolerant response.
Conclusion
Tolerance, as one of the tenets of modern liberal thought, cannot be applied universally to every situation, without taking into account the nature of an opinion, behavior or act to be tolerated and the amount and nature of harm done to the society followed by intolerance. We can assume that intolerance is justified on the grounds of reciprocity i.e. as Heywood stated, tolerance should not be granted automatically and it requires certain effort to be excerpted by the groups demanding tolerance and proportionality, which implies that there should be balance between the original intolerance and its corresponding intolerant response. Even though tolerance constitutes a major tenet of modern liberal democratic states, where each and every individual is endowed with personal autonomy and a right of individual liberty, preventing certain individuals from infringing others’ private life, there are some exceptional cases, where intolerance can be justified. Even though individual liberty is an integral part of the democratic societies, my essay primarily focused on the limits of tolerance at the political level, where we might face much more disastrous results in case of allowing unlimited tolerance towards the intolerant groups. Having tolerant attitude is vital in pluralist societies, but when national sovereignty and democratic values are endangered due to the nature and amount of intolerance exposed to the wide public, appropriate intolerant response should be nurtured taking into account the costs and benefits of such response.
Bibliography
Frost, Rainer. “Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive Theory of Toleration.” In Toleration and Its Limits, edited by Melissa S. Williams and Jeremy Waldron. New York University Press, 2008.
Heywood, Andrew. Political Theory: An Introduction. Palgrave, 2015.
McClure, Kirstie M. Difference, Diversity and the Limits of Toleration. Sage Publication, 1990.
Nehushtan, Yossi. “The Limits of Tolerance: A Substantive-Liberal Perspective.” 2007.
O’Toole, Fintan. “The Limits of Tolerance.” By Fintal O’Toole and Lucy Beckett. Irish Province of the Society of Jesus, 1997.
Years ago, religions enforced what I would call a pseudo moral code through the power of the state to enact laws desired by the most powerful religions. This of course reflected the power that religions had in society back when you could go to hell for missing mass on Sunday. Gambling was verboten. There was legalized horse race betting in only a few states, and a few states had some other sports such as greyhound racing or Jai Alai which you could bet on. Legally, you could only place bets at the venue. Of course, organized crime found it very lucrative to offer “off track” betting. Every street corner where I grew up had a bookie some place or other. And of course, the numbers game was a very popular way for fools to lose their money. Sports betting was done privately, and casino gambling did not start in Las Vegas until 1931. It had been legal earlier but was outlawed in 1910 and not legalized until 1931. The only lottery I ever heard of when I was growing up had to do with the Irish Sweepstakes. There must have been some way to buy these tickets, but I never investigated it.
Whiskey can now be purchased almost 24/7 in many states. You can buy it in grocery stores, gas stations, bars, and convenience stores. Perhaps no substance has been more abhorred by religions than whiskey. Benjamin Franklin said that “Beer is proof that God loved man and wanted him to be happy.” However, this was not the attitude of most religious organizations. Temperance movements motivated by so called moral considerations did their best to ban alcohol in the US. It is illegal in thirteen countries in the world. Several of the world’s major religions ban the use of alcohol. There are seventy-five scripture (Bible) warnings against the drinking of alcohol. Is it any wonder that so many religions have prohibited the drinking of alcohol.
Now there may be some of you reading my blog and expecting a fire and brimstone sermon regarding the sins of humanity and the temptations of the devil. Nothing could be further from my mind. I am not advocating going back to the religious sanctions or beliefs that fueled so much of our political system. In the first place, they were misguided and in the second place they penalized those who could practice moral virtues along with those most reluctant. I could never understand why I could not buy liquor on Sunday or after 10 PM on weekdays or in a grocery store. I have never received a DUI or even a warning for driving drunk.
The government has always been in the marketing business. They would market “SIN” if they could find a way to sell it or allow it to be sold. In some respects, they are already doing that with the legalization of gambling and their promotion of bigger and bigger lotteries. The poor buy more and more tickets when the odds go ever higher against anyone winning. Powerball’s odds are 1 in 292 million, and the combined populations in the states where tickets are sold equal nearly 320 million. What would anyone do with 2 billion dollars? (As I write this, the lottery of 2.0 billion has been won by a single person in California)
The secular path is the path of the world. It is the path that says you need to have more of the things of the world to put in your basket. Getting more of the world’s stuff is heralded as the secret to filling your basket and achieving success and happiness. Some of the things people try to get more of include: Food, drugs, alcohol, fame, fortune, money, medals, accomplishments, status, power, knowledge, youth, health and titles. While some of these things might be useful in your other baskets, in this basket they simply do not work. The spiritual basket is immune to the things of the world. It is a truism that all of the great prophets and philosophers and thinkers have extolled. Sadly, it is a path that is promoted by too much of the world because it is driven by greed and financial profits. Buy that new truck and you will be happy. Buy that giant house and you will be happy. Read the latest diet book and you will be happy. How many times do people have to go down this path before they will realize that it only takes them in the wrong direction?
The great spiritual leaders like Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha and Baháʼu’lláh all had followers and tried to teach their followers by various means. It seems that the goal of enlightenment, samadhi or nirvana was achieved by each of the great leaders and even by some of their followers. Unfortunately for humanity and for most organized religions, these gurus and religious teachers all missed one important truth. “You cannot teach enlightenment.” Enlightenment can only be learned by example. We learn from our parents by the example they set for us. We learn by observing how they treat other people. We learn by what they do rather than what they say. The followers of the great prophets and gurus were learning their spirituality from what their teachers were doing and now what they were saying.
The Catholic Church prescribes celibacy for its nuns and priests. The recent scandals regarding the abuse of power by priests, bishops and cardinals would suggest a serious hypocrisy. More importantly perhaps would be for the church to ask itself if these prohibitions do any good or serve any purpose. Tradition may have a role in life but there is also a time when traditions must be changed.
Like Dion DiMucci’s “The Wanderer,” I spent years wandering from church to church and religion to religion to explore other venues for spirituality. Dion was my favorite pop singer in the sixties. As I write this, he is still alive and performing. One of his most popular hits was a song called “The Wanderer.” The lyrics grabbed every guy I hung out with, and we all dreamed of being macho and tough like the guy in the song.
I thought I would start the year of 2021 off with a positive slant. Namely, some things we can all do or practice to be better people. However, before anyone should pay any attention to what I am about to say, there are several questions they must ask themselves. I would advise you that the veracity and hence credibility of an author is critical to your acceptance of what the author is trying to sell you or convince you of. Do not buy an argument from someone who cannot be trusted. Think about the comment that “If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.” An uncritical acceptance of any idea is dangerous to your own integrity and responsibility. Hence, the questions I would want answered (If I were you) would be as follows: Who is this writer to say what the “greatest” virtues for a human are? How did he come up with these Seven Virtues? What is the difference between a virtue and a value? Is this an important difference or is he about to sell me another new religion?
I would like to answer that I am a seeker of truth and knowledge. I am very opinionated, often highly judgmental and have frequently been accused of being a “know it all.” Many people would write my opinions off as being too liberal while others would say that I am too rational. I place great value on being logical and trying to stay open to many possibilities. I have been studying philosophy and religion since I was eighteen. I have no degrees in either. But the number of books and articles and stories that I have read number in the hundreds. I have attended many different worship houses and types of religious services. I was brought up as a Catholic until I rejected its teachings at about the age of 10. When no one would give me a good answer for “Who made God?” I more or less decided that most religions were based on superstitions.
Given that one could easily comprise a list of ten or perhaps one hundred important virtues, why do I believe that my seven are the seven greatest and most important? How do I have the audacity to make such an assertion? I might have been sitting under an apple tree one day, or perhaps simply thinking about life at one of my yearly silent retreats at the Demontreville Retreat Center, when I compiled a list of seven virtues. While I truly “value” these ideas, I understand them more as virtues than values. I will address this difference later. I decided that I want to live by these virtues. Each day for the last fifteen or more years, I have selected one of these seven virtues to help guide me through the day. Whether it is patience, kindness or courage, each day I start by reflecting on this virtue and trying to make it a part of my life.
The danger in this discussion lies in your taking a sectarian or religious approach to my writings. I assure you that I am not a religious person. I may be a spiritual person but I do not think of myself in either of these categories. I am an agnostic who wants to live a better life and help build a world that is a better place to live for future generations. Living by these seven virtues is one way I believe I can contribute to this goal.
If I have satisfactorily answered the questions that I posed above respecting my integrity and credibility, I will now set off to address each of my Seven Virtues and explain why they are so important and the difference that I think they can make in our lives. Look for my virtues over the next several weeks in my blogs.
It was January of 1986. I had finished all my course work for my Ph.D. degree. It had already been a long and cold and snowy Minnesota winter. I had finally collected all the data I needed to finish my dissertation. Four years in school, working part-time, divorced, no money and writing a dissertation had just about wrung me out. I needed a vacation but had no money. Someone told me about this place called Demontreville which they described as a sort of place to get away from life. They had beautiful facilities, private rooms and some really nice ski trails. You could get three free meals for four days and there was no charge. It was all based on voluntary donations. Weekend retreats ran from Thursday evening to Sunday evening.
When I went into the “conference” center, there were many men milling around and talking in small groups. I am not the most social guy in the world, so I took a seat on a couch by myself and commenced reading a magazine called America. This is a magazine published by the Jesuits each month and to this day I always enjoy reading it. 
At about 6:50 PM or so, a Jesuit priest arrived and after a loud hand clap, announced that dinner was being served. We first said a short prayer called the Angelus and then went into the dining hall which is connected to the conference center. The “conference center” is really just a large room to relax in. It has numerous chairs and sofas scattered about a well-lit room with large windows looking out over the grounds. It is one of the most peaceful places in the world to sit, reflect and enjoy a coffee. The conferences (Which I learned about later) are all held in the chapel which is also connected to the dining hall. The only time you have to leave the building is to go to your room. I was given a room assignment upon entering the conference center.
There are things that bother other people which may not be flaws at all. In fact, some so called flaws demonstrate individuals who are marching to a different drummer or who are defying conventional social norms. To defy anti-Semitism in Germany during the early 20th century would have been considered a character flaw. To be an abolitionist in the South prior to the Civil War would have led to persecution by your fellow citizens. Who today would consider these character flaws? History will often show that a “flawed” individual was a hero or heroine rather than someone with a character defect.
Once upon a time, there was a group of creatures called humans. They evolve and live out their lives on a place they call Earth. Earth is basically a spheroidal rock that revolves around a Class 3 star (called a sun) in a galaxy named the Milky Way. No humans know where they came from, how they developed or why. This is a subject of endless debate and speculation that has led to a plethora of social organizations which humans call religions.
There are beauty products, breast enhancements, hair implants, plastic surgery, expensive cars, perfume, jewelry, large homes, designer clothes, college degrees and many other products or services designed to help you feel less inadequate and more adequate. We all want to feel adequate which means we must somehow learn to escape or jettison our inadequacy paradigms. The marketplace strategy involves spending huge amounts of money on a regular basis to escape the “inadequacy paradigm.” This strategy is often a failure as money and products cannot provide for real happiness or address some of the cultural biases, prejudices, racism and bigotry that contribute to the “inadequacy paradigm.”
If you have not read Hofstadter’s “Anti-Intellectualism in America Life” I heartily recommend it. I have often joked that the worst discrimination in America seems to be saved for people who think. Many companies trumpet their desire for “out of the box” thinkers. This is usually nothing more than a well parroted display of self-deception. What Human Resources and the company are really looking for is “people who fit in.” People who are iconoclasts, people who are critical thinkers, people who rock the boat “need not apply here.”
We have a pervasive problem that I labeled the “Inadequacy Paradigm.” Much of it is caused by racism, xenophobia, prejudice, stereotypes and bigotry. The majority of it is systemic and will need major changes in policies and institutions in this country to eliminate. However, it is felt on a very personal level. Feelings of inadequacy may be conveyed by others and cultural mores but they are received by an individual who assimilates these feelings into their psyche. Thus, inadequacy becomes a personal problem and not simply a social problem. Inadequacy is not “out there” it is right inside. The vast numbers of suicides in our society are testament to the inadequacy that many of our fellow citizens feel. This includes Whites as well as minorities.
Aging Capriciously 