Read on Twitter
[QUICK THREAD: THE PARADOX OF TOLERANCE]
1/31
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? The question has given sleepless nights to political thinkers for centuries. That's because it's a paradox, but also because it's a nonpartisan question with a very partisan answer.
1/31
Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? The question has given sleepless nights to political thinkers for centuries. That's because it's a paradox, but also because it's a nonpartisan question with a very partisan answer.
2/31
Here's what makes it a paradox. If you tolerate the intolerant, the intolerant will gain prominence and eventually destroy tolerance. If you don't, you become intolerant. See the conundrum? One man who attempted to resolve this was Karl Popper.
Here's what makes it a paradox. If you tolerate the intolerant, the intolerant will gain prominence and eventually destroy tolerance. If you don't, you become intolerant. See the conundrum? One man who attempted to resolve this was Karl Popper.
3/31
Popper was an Austrian-British social commentator who first came up with the expression, "paradox of tolerance." Counted among the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, he wrote an entire volume to the subject titled "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
Popper was an Austrian-British social commentator who first came up with the expression, "paradox of tolerance." Counted among the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, he wrote an entire volume to the subject titled "The Open Society and Its Enemies."
4/31
But Popper wasn't the first to think of the paradox, even though he was the first to call it one. More than 2,000 years before him, the question had troubled none other than the celebrated Athenian, Plato, when he came up with the idea of a "benevolent dictator."
But Popper wasn't the first to think of the paradox, even though he was the first to call it one. More than 2,000 years before him, the question had troubled none other than the celebrated Athenian, Plato, when he came up with the idea of a "benevolent dictator."
5/31
The term Plato used for the benevolent dictator was "philosopher king." He observed that a ruler must be a philosopher and vice-versa. In his most celebrated work, Republic, he argued against both unhinged liberty and unintelligent power.
The term Plato used for the benevolent dictator was "philosopher king." He observed that a ruler must be a philosopher and vice-versa. In his most celebrated work, Republic, he argued against both unhinged liberty and unintelligent power.
6/31
Plato's ideal society was one that's ruled purely by knowledge and wisdom. But that, he observed, wasn't compatible with democracy. Unchecked authoritarianism, on the other hand, could bring tyranny. Thus, he proposed a trade-off. Between philosophy and authority.
Plato's ideal society was one that's ruled purely by knowledge and wisdom. But that, he observed, wasn't compatible with democracy. Unchecked authoritarianism, on the other hand, could bring tyranny. Thus, he proposed a trade-off. Between philosophy and authority.
7/31
That's what he meant by philosopher king. Such a king would be wise, erudite, and incorruptible by power, but also be despotic just enough to keep things together. This idea has often been resurrected in modern times as the benevolent dictator.
That's what he meant by philosopher king. Such a king would be wise, erudite, and incorruptible by power, but also be despotic just enough to keep things together. This idea has often been resurrected in modern times as the benevolent dictator.
8/31
Like Nietzsche, Plato has also been misappropriated by tyrants as an advocate of totalitarianism. But with a little nuance, it becomes obvious that he spoke of a balance between the two extremes. Balance that was only acknowledged in 1945.
Like Nietzsche, Plato has also been misappropriated by tyrants as an advocate of totalitarianism. But with a little nuance, it becomes obvious that he spoke of a balance between the two extremes. Balance that was only acknowledged in 1945.
9/31
The Nazis were on their way out when Popper's 2-volume work came out. In the first volume titled "Age of Plato," Popper warns against the perils of co-opting Platonic politics without nuance. In fact, Popper even disagrees with Plato's idea of the benevolent dictator.
The Nazis were on their way out when Popper's 2-volume work came out. In the first volume titled "Age of Plato," Popper warns against the perils of co-opting Platonic politics without nuance. In fact, Popper even disagrees with Plato's idea of the benevolent dictator.
10/31
It's in chapter 7 where Popper finally pops the question. The paradox of tolerance, it's here that the expression appears for the first time. Popper posits that unrestrained tolerance would create a fertile ground for the intolerant eventually killing tolerance itself.
It's in chapter 7 where Popper finally pops the question. The paradox of tolerance, it's here that the expression appears for the first time. Popper posits that unrestrained tolerance would create a fertile ground for the intolerant eventually killing tolerance itself.
11/31
Here's exactly what he says:
"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."
Here's exactly what he says:
"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."
12/31
As apparent, both Popper and Plato seem to agree on the idea of restrains on tolerance. But then comes implementation which is where Popper departs from the Greek's ideals.
While Plato resolved the conundrum with benevolent authoritarianism, Popper stuck to democracy.
As apparent, both Popper and Plato seem to agree on the idea of restrains on tolerance. But then comes implementation which is where Popper departs from the Greek's ideals.
While Plato resolved the conundrum with benevolent authoritarianism, Popper stuck to democracy.
13/31
According to him, institutions could be fortifed with sufficient checks and balance to prevent intolerance from taking over. Within a democratic framework. Under no circumstances, he felt, should society resort to dictatorship, not even the "benevolent" kind.
According to him, institutions could be fortifed with sufficient checks and balance to prevent intolerance from taking over. Within a democratic framework. Under no circumstances, he felt, should society resort to dictatorship, not even the "benevolent" kind.
14/31
So, here's what we have thus far:
Universal tolerance is good because it fosters autonomy and personal liberty. But it also allows space to intolerance which makes it untenable in the long run. Thus, there ought to be a limit on the amount of tolerance in a society.
So, here's what we have thus far:
Universal tolerance is good because it fosters autonomy and personal liberty. But it also allows space to intolerance which makes it untenable in the long run. Thus, there ought to be a limit on the amount of tolerance in a society.
15/31
But there's a problem with that. Who established those limits? Popper says the intolerable mustn't be tolerated for tolerance to survive. So who gets to define "intolerable"?
Interestingly enough, this is one question that was answered by someone long before Popper.
But there's a problem with that. Who established those limits? Popper says the intolerable mustn't be tolerated for tolerance to survive. So who gets to define "intolerable"?
Interestingly enough, this is one question that was answered by someone long before Popper.
16/31
About a century before Popper, English philosopher John Stuart Mill articulated the "Harm Principle" in his work titled "On Liberty." It was the earliest attempt to resolve the paradox of tolerance; even before the very expression was coined.
In his words:
About a century before Popper, English philosopher John Stuart Mill articulated the "Harm Principle" in his work titled "On Liberty." It was the earliest attempt to resolve the paradox of tolerance; even before the very expression was coined.
In his words:
17/31
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
This makes things much easier. Basically, he says, tolerate everything. Except what's harmful.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
This makes things much easier. Basically, he says, tolerate everything. Except what's harmful.
18/31
That should fix the ethical conundrum, right? Not really. Take cars, for instance. They cause accidents and are potentially dangerous. Should they therefore be banned? At least the harm principle would seem to say so.
Believe be, someone did resolve this too.
That should fix the ethical conundrum, right? Not really. Take cars, for instance. They cause accidents and are potentially dangerous. Should they therefore be banned? At least the harm principle would seem to say so.
Believe be, someone did resolve this too.
19/31
Jeremy Bentham was also an English philosopher, but he came before Mill. In fact, Bentham taught James Mill, John Stuart Mill's father. He came up with a principle of his own, the "Utilitarian Principle." No wonder, we call him the father of utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham was also an English philosopher, but he came before Mill. In fact, Bentham taught James Mill, John Stuart Mill's father. He came up with a principle of his own, the "Utilitarian Principle." No wonder, we call him the father of utilitarianism.
20/31
Utilitarianism implies, if the benefits outweigh the harm, it's good. So yes, some cars kill. But far more help with transportation. Thus, Bentham would argue, they ought to stay. Funny how each solution here predates the problem it addresses.
Utilitarianism implies, if the benefits outweigh the harm, it's good. So yes, some cars kill. But far more help with transportation. Thus, Bentham would argue, they ought to stay. Funny how each solution here predates the problem it addresses.
21/31
But the utilitarian principle and harm principle have their own set of problems. Should we can smoking then, given it doesn't do anyone any good? How about fast food? Sugar? See how things can spiral out of hand and create a nanny state before we realize it?
But the utilitarian principle and harm principle have their own set of problems. Should we can smoking then, given it doesn't do anyone any good? How about fast food? Sugar? See how things can spiral out of hand and create a nanny state before we realize it?
22/31
Let's try a slightly different approach. This one comes from John Rawls, an American political thinker and philosopher who discussed this question in his 1971 work, A Theory of Justice. This was a good 25 years after the paradox was named.
Let's try a slightly different approach. This one comes from John Rawls, an American political thinker and philosopher who discussed this question in his 1971 work, A Theory of Justice. This was a good 25 years after the paradox was named.
23/31
Rawls generally agrees with Popper on the question of limited tolerance. Both posit that there should be limits on what's tolerated. However, unlike Popper, Rawls doesn't place those limits as the default state of the society.
Rawls generally agrees with Popper on the question of limited tolerance. Both posit that there should be limits on what's tolerated. However, unlike Popper, Rawls doesn't place those limits as the default state of the society.
24/31
According to Rawls, the starting point must be universal tolerance. And only when an element becomes a threat to social order, should tolerance be suspended. He called it self-preservation. In other words, tolerate the intolerant until there's reason not to.
According to Rawls, the starting point must be universal tolerance. And only when an element becomes a threat to social order, should tolerance be suspended. He called it self-preservation. In other words, tolerate the intolerant until there's reason not to.
25/31
So how do we approach a neo-Nazi ideologue like Steve Bannon? Or a saffron extremist like Ajay Bisht? Popper would block them preemptively, foreseeing their reach and capacity for destruction. Rawls would wait until those apprehensions become real and present.
So how do we approach a neo-Nazi ideologue like Steve Bannon? Or a saffron extremist like Ajay Bisht? Popper would block them preemptively, foreseeing their reach and capacity for destruction. Rawls would wait until those apprehensions become real and present.
26/31
There's many other thinkers who have opined extensively on the subject. Names include Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Michael Walzer, Michel Rosenfeld, and others. Although they differ from each other on where to place the limit, they all agree on its existence.
There's many other thinkers who have opined extensively on the subject. Names include Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Michael Walzer, Michel Rosenfeld, and others. Although they differ from each other on where to place the limit, they all agree on its existence.
27/31
No major political thinker since the time of Ancient Greece has advocated unaccountable tolerance. Within reason, a suspension of tolerance has always been provisioned in every philosopher's work. What that reason ought to be, is for all of us to debate.
No major political thinker since the time of Ancient Greece has advocated unaccountable tolerance. Within reason, a suspension of tolerance has always been provisioned in every philosopher's work. What that reason ought to be, is for all of us to debate.
28/31
But do remember, reason itself is fluid and subjective. I'd like to believe, as I once did like Rand, that it's absolute. But nothing really is. Take criticism of religion, for instance. Or stereotypes. Or straight up name-calling. Should these be tolerated?
But do remember, reason itself is fluid and subjective. I'd like to believe, as I once did like Rand, that it's absolute. But nothing really is. Take criticism of religion, for instance. Or stereotypes. Or straight up name-calling. Should these be tolerated?
29/31
I sure would, and demand that you do too. But am I the final word in the matter? According to many, not really. What about those that claim psychological hurt when their identity group (religion, etc.) is mocked? Lot of fuzzy areas.
I sure would, and demand that you do too. But am I the final word in the matter? According to many, not really. What about those that claim psychological hurt when their identity group (religion, etc.) is mocked? Lot of fuzzy areas.
30/31
One solution is to just cull all expressions that a society deems unacceptable as a group. Would that be absolutely just? Certainly not in my books. But that's just as close as it gets.
By that measure, don't blaspheme in Saudi, and don't deny the holocaust in Germany.
One solution is to just cull all expressions that a society deems unacceptable as a group. Would that be absolutely just? Certainly not in my books. But that's just as close as it gets.
By that measure, don't blaspheme in Saudi, and don't deny the holocaust in Germany.
31/31
Doesn't sound fair at all. But then, there IS no fair solution here. Life is all about winging it and so is civilization. Whatever gets the fewest people killed can be taken as a good enough strategy in the interest of utilitarianism.
Doesn't sound fair at all. But then, there IS no fair solution here. Life is all about winging it and so is civilization. Whatever gets the fewest people killed can be taken as a good enough strategy in the interest of utilitarianism.
