The paradox of tolerance: why you can't put up with other people's opinions all the time

2024 Author: Malcolm Clapton | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 03:44

Tolerance has boundaries and they need to be protected.

What is the paradox of tolerance

Let's say a white crow starts up in the forest. Most hooded crows shrugged their shoulders and move on. But there was one dissatisfied. She says that white crows have no place in this forest, so it would be worth the newcomer to break off her wings and forbid breeding. Others answer: "Have mercy, mother, she differs only in the color of the plumage, but otherwise the same as we are." But the dissatisfied retorts: “If you are so tolerant, then why forbid me to speak out? You must be tolerant of my opinion as well."

Indeed, on the one hand, tolerance is tolerance for a different worldview, lifestyle and behavior. To things that we do not share and with which we disagree. Based on this, any opinion has the right to life. On the other hand, the "cannibalistic" worldview leads to discrimination and violence, and somehow you don't want to endure them. It turns out that there is no tolerance?

This paradox was described by the Austrian and British philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we are infinitely tolerant even to the intolerant, if we are not ready to defend a tolerant society from the attacks of the intolerant, the tolerant will be defeated.

Karl Popper

It turns out that complete tolerance does not make sense. It can only be defended if you are intolerant of those who promote intolerance.

What follows from the paradox of tolerance

As always, everything depends on the interpretation. Some perceive this paradox as a challenge: “Those who advocate tolerance are the most intolerant. At least initially we are not hypocritical and openly say that we treat some categories of people with hatred. " Others see in him a justification of violence as the primary way to defend tolerance: "Here all the good people will gather, they will exterminate all the bad ones, and then we will live." And this and that does not sound very peaceful.

Popper himself, although he believed that tolerance should be defended, but called for it to be done "by arguments of reason and by means of public opinion." Therefore, the intolerant should really be given the floor, because this creates a field for discussion. And forceful methods should be used only in the form of self-defense and only in order to return life to its usual course. The philosopher does not deny that they can come in handy:

After all, it may well turn out that they [representatives of intolerant philosophical trends] are not ready to communicate with us at the level of reasoning arguments and will begin by rejecting any arguments. Perhaps they will argue that these arguments are deceiving and that fists and pistols must be used to answer them. Thus, in the name of tolerance, the right should be proclaimed not to be tolerant of intolerance.

Karl Popper

For example, if a hooded crow goes to a white crow with a pitchfork, there will be no time for discussion. You will need to stop the aggressor by force. But until this happens, it is worth enlightening, convincing, explaining. It is not necessary to be tolerant of the "cannibalistic" opinion.

Popper in his work deduces the most important, in his opinion, principles of humanistic ethics. We are interested in the first one:

Tolerance towards everyone who is tolerant himself and does not promote intolerance. The moral choice of others should be respected only if it does not contradict the principle of tolerance.

Karl Popper

How to be tolerant in a world full of paradoxes

Do not consider your opinion to be the only correct one

In one study, participants were asked to rate how tolerant they were of people of a different gender or race. And then they asked questions that help to reveal hidden prejudices. It turned out that sexists and racists considered themselves the most tolerant. And the self-esteem of truly unbiased people was rather modest. And this is a good example of how you can interpret your own opinion incorrectly, not to mention someone else's.

Start with yourself

Intolerance often arises for attitudes and lifestyles that do not directly affect us at all. For example, if someone wants to wear slippers on their socks, then what kind of sadness does this make us? Perhaps for us such a person looks ridiculous or unfashionable. But this is not his problem, but ours. And it is we who need to figure out what scares and hooks us so much that it causes hostility.

Digging yourself up hurts. Shifting responsibility for the discomfort onto someone else is always easier. At the same time, life will become much easier if you deal with internal problems. Because the people who piss us off will not disappear anywhere. It's much easier to stop raving.

To be open

In medicine, tolerance means a decrease in the response to repeated administration of a substance, addiction to it. This definition already contains an instruction. We can get annoyed when confronted with some people, because we perceive them as something foreign. But tolerance is a habit. The more often we interact with a stimulus and react monotonously to it, the easier it is to form a stereotype of tolerant behavior.

Do not criticize, but be interested

We are annoyed by unusual things and people. But perhaps it would be easier for us to come to terms if we knew why this is the case. For example, socks under flip flops protect against blisters. And the family of a person of a different nationality - residents of this area in the fifth generation, and "come in large numbers" here is not at all he. Such sudden discoveries make you look at everything in a new light.

Tell your opinion

If the previous points were more about tolerance, then here we come directly to its paradox. As we remember, the main weapon of tolerance is education. And public debate works great for this purpose.

For example, take the black-dominated movie scandal. The pendulum is swinging, and the two extreme positions are most visible. On one of them there are those who are worried that there are no blacks in the Chernobyl series. On the other, viewers expressing their outrage at any black character. But now the problem of discrimination in the film industry has been brought into the plane of public discussion, and this is already a lot. And the pendulum will sooner or later calm down and take a position in the center.

Do not be afraid of discussions

Popper suggests not to deprive the voice of the carriers of hostile philosophies (which could be any of us). Truth is born in disputes, but only if the interlocutors are at least a little bit ready to listen to each other. If we just defend our position without hearing our opponent, it is a waste of time. But if you approach the process consciously, you can get a very good result.

• Learn new data and adjust your views. It's okay to change your mind in the light of additional information.
• Strengthen your position. Opponent's arguments sometimes only add bricks to it.
• Get arguments for new disputes. Opponents often ask questions that baffle us. But they also provide food for thought. There is an opportunity to think and prepare in case someone in the future asks about the same.

It is also important that the discussion is aimed not only at opponents, but also at the audience. Perhaps, we will not convince the opponent, but we will force those around us to think. That is why it is important to debate environmentally and remember that this is a conversation, not a war.

Do not tolerate "cannibalism"

Of course, one can ignore a hostile statement and no one should blame us for it. To resist "cannibalism" requires an internal resource. Otherwise, saving the world, we risk not saving ourselves. But if we have this resource, it is possible and necessary to express disagreement with a hostile position.

For example, you were always silent when you were insulting someone, and then once - and stopped. For a while, you will look strange in the eyes of others. And then someone else will take your side. And further. Nothing revolutionary, just words. But sometimes they are enough to change everything.