What is the “paradox of tolerance” and is it legit?
In: 1208
I am going to doge to core theme, and ask the *other* question you asked.
Is the x paradox legit?
This question is quite off target. Paradoxes are meant to show something through a countersense. There is nothing legit about paradoxes. They are headscratchers made to make you *think critically*
For example Zeno’s paradox. The arrow does not reach the target ever YET you know that the arrow will do it. Both statements appear to be logically/factually right, yet they state exactly the opposite.
Paradox of tolerance tells you that absolute tolerance paves the way to intolerance. Thus to be tolerant you should be intolerant. ??? This can be puzzling, and **it is** puzzling.
Understanding where should the line between *including everyone* and *excluding the dangerous* be, is an extremely delicate and complex task, where personal priorities, beliefs and morality play a huge role.
There is nothing *legit* in ANY paradox. Except the fact that they offer you a legit way to think about a theme in a complex and complete way.
Now it is **your** turn:
Where do **you** draw the line, between being inclusive of everyone and not allowing violent and oppressive creeds?
Pacifism suffer a similar paradox. If I completely reject violence in any form (imprisonment is a form of violence too), I am most vulnerable to opposing violence, and my potential strength to protect the weaker is lost to my ideal. If violence can only be opposed by violence, a pacifist should be violent against violents? Where is the line? If I am pacifist, and live in a country with a dictatorship, should I not fight it (bc im pacifist) or should I fight it (bc the violence imposed by the dictatorship is “worse” than the violence of toppling it down)?
I am going to doge to core theme, and ask the *other* question you asked.
Is the x paradox legit?
This question is quite off target. Paradoxes are meant to show something through a countersense. There is nothing legit about paradoxes. They are headscratchers made to make you *think critically*
For example Zeno’s paradox. The arrow does not reach the target ever YET you know that the arrow will do it. Both statements appear to be logically/factually right, yet they state exactly the opposite.
Paradox of tolerance tells you that absolute tolerance paves the way to intolerance. Thus to be tolerant you should be intolerant. ??? This can be puzzling, and **it is** puzzling.
Understanding where should the line between *including everyone* and *excluding the dangerous* be, is an extremely delicate and complex task, where personal priorities, beliefs and morality play a huge role.
There is nothing *legit* in ANY paradox. Except the fact that they offer you a legit way to think about a theme in a complex and complete way.
Now it is **your** turn:
Where do **you** draw the line, between being inclusive of everyone and not allowing violent and oppressive creeds?
Pacifism suffer a similar paradox. If I completely reject violence in any form (imprisonment is a form of violence too), I am most vulnerable to opposing violence, and my potential strength to protect the weaker is lost to my ideal. If violence can only be opposed by violence, a pacifist should be violent against violents? Where is the line? If I am pacifist, and live in a country with a dictatorship, should I not fight it (bc im pacifist) or should I fight it (bc the violence imposed by the dictatorship is “worse” than the violence of toppling it down)?
The part that’s left out, including that unfortunately famous comic, is that it’s talking about “limitless tolerance”. Meaning a permissive society that won’t defend itself or establish any limits at all on expression.
People used that to justify cracking down on offensive opinions and bigoted statements. And advocating for the laws to change to support it.
When in reality the US and other western societies have limits on speech when it comes to threats. Popper never meant to justify legally penalizing people for offense, but that a society that tolerates anything will be toppled by those who hate them.
His statement doesn’t apply, but people twisted it to justify the idea we should jail for offense.
The part that’s left out, including that unfortunately famous comic, is that it’s talking about “limitless tolerance”. Meaning a permissive society that won’t defend itself or establish any limits at all on expression.
People used that to justify cracking down on offensive opinions and bigoted statements. And advocating for the laws to change to support it.
When in reality the US and other western societies have limits on speech when it comes to threats. Popper never meant to justify legally penalizing people for offense, but that a society that tolerates anything will be toppled by those who hate them.
His statement doesn’t apply, but people twisted it to justify the idea we should jail for offense.
It’s the idea that you can not be tolerant of the intolerant in a tolerant society.
The big problem with it is that it is constantly weaponized to justify dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with the speaker. It’s used to shut down discussions by claiming the opponent is intolerant and therefore must be removed from the conversation.
It’s the idea that you can not be tolerant of the intolerant in a tolerant society.
The big problem with it is that it is constantly weaponized to justify dehumanizing anyone who disagrees with the speaker. It’s used to shut down discussions by claiming the opponent is intolerant and therefore must be removed from the conversation.
Like every moral issue it boils down to and can be resolved with the Golden rule: Don’t do unto another what you don’t want to be done to you.
You wouldn’t want the thief of your goods or murderer of your loved one to go unpunished so violations of the Golden rules are (should be) punished. And also in a commensurate manner.
You can’t take things out on people other than those than the perpetrators. Which is where eg the current conflict in Gaza/Israel goes wrong.
Of course this is exacerbated by religion, which grants itself privileges at the expense of others (which goes against the Golden rule, of course). And the cycle continues.
We should take Israel to task for its violations of the Golden rule on the Westbank. And allow it to go after those that shoot rockets/committed heinous terroristic crimes. Collateral damage however is not acceptable (violation of the Golden rule).
Like every moral issue it boils down to and can be resolved with the Golden rule: Don’t do unto another what you don’t want to be done to you.
You wouldn’t want the thief of your goods or murderer of your loved one to go unpunished so violations of the Golden rules are (should be) punished. And also in a commensurate manner.
You can’t take things out on people other than those than the perpetrators. Which is where eg the current conflict in Gaza/Israel goes wrong.
Of course this is exacerbated by religion, which grants itself privileges at the expense of others (which goes against the Golden rule, of course). And the cycle continues.
We should take Israel to task for its violations of the Golden rule on the Westbank. And allow it to go after those that shoot rockets/committed heinous terroristic crimes. Collateral damage however is not acceptable (violation of the Golden rule).
The paradox of tolerance is the idea that, in order to be maximally tolerant, you must permit behavior that is not tolerant, resulting in an environment that is ultimately not tolerant.
This only a paradox if you think of tolerance as a *moral rule* rather than what it is, a social contract.
The social contract of tolerance is this: those that tolerate will be tolerated. You aren’t obligated to tolerate people that don’t obey the social contract themselves, and you have good reasons not to.
The paradox of tolerance is the idea that, in order to be maximally tolerant, you must permit behavior that is not tolerant, resulting in an environment that is ultimately not tolerant.
This only a paradox if you think of tolerance as a *moral rule* rather than what it is, a social contract.
The social contract of tolerance is this: those that tolerate will be tolerated. You aren’t obligated to tolerate people that don’t obey the social contract themselves, and you have good reasons not to.
Latest Answers