What is tolerance?

Image

When we say someone is tolerant, what do we mean? Conversely, what do we mean when we say that someone else is intolerant? I believe that almost all of us want to be tolerant people in some way. But what exactly does that mean? The word "tolerate" can actually mean several things. That's why we can very easily run into misunderstanding and conflict when discussing whether someone is tolerant or not.

In order to understand this, let us distinguish between three types of tolerance:

• tolerance of persons
• tolerance of behaviors 
• and tolerance of ideas

The first type, tolerance of persons, is also called "civic tolerance". Or, in today's language, we can use the word 'respect'. In this sense, you treat other people well - with respect - even if you disagree with them. Respect, deference and tolerance are here accorded to a person. 
But watch out. In the original sense of the word, you can tolerate a certain person only if you have some sort of disagreement or conflict with them. As long as you have no problem with the person, you have nothing to tolerate in him/her. You just are not causing any hindrance to each other in any way. 

The second type is tolerance of some behavior. This type is different from the first type. Every country on earth has some rules about what behavior is tolerated and what is no longer tolerated. Shopping, driving, and jumping out of a plane with a parachute are examples of behaviors that are tolerated (at least in my country). 
On the other hand, shoplifting, drunk driving or throwing someone out of a plane without a parachute are behaviours that are not tolerated. If you do any of these intolerable behaviours, you will be punished.

The third type is tolerance of ideas. The first type of tolerance (tolerating people) implies that all people's opinions should be given a courteous hearing. This does not mean that all people's opinions are of equal value, utility, or degree of truthfulness. Some opinions and ideas are certainly wiser and will hold up better than weak, foolish, and nonsensical opinions and ideas.

As with tolerance of persons, to tolerate an idea does not mean to agree with it. It's just the opposite: you must first disagree with the idea in question. Only then can you decide, "Am I going to tolerate this idea or not?" On the other hand, if you agree with an idea, there is nothing to tolerate. You simply agree with it.

The limits of idea tolerance

Let's explore a little more the third type: tolerance of ideas and opinions. What are the limits of this tolerance? Which opinions should we tolerate and leave room for? And what ideas and opinions are already beyond some perceived limit? We all have some personal tolerance limits for opinions we disagree with. But that's not what I'm talking about now. I'm referring to some sort of standard. Or the setting of society as a whole. I'm simply looking for an answer to the question: should there be any objective societal boundaries in this? If yes, then where? On what basis do we determine which opinions and ideas are allowed to be expressed in society as a whole, and which are no longer allowed?

Philosopher Karl Popper and his description of the paradox of tolerance will help to illuminate this dilemma:

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.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. 

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

This means that there is a certain boundary. And views beyond that boundary should not be tolerated by society as a whole. Setting that boundary may not always be simple and clear. And even Karl Popper himself urges caution and rejects the notion that "we should always suppress the expression of intolerant philosophies". 

But if it is an opinion/idea with some dangerous characteristics, then we need to watch out and consider whether that line is being crossed here. Karl considers the following characteristics to be dangerous:

• when someone is unwilling or unable to defend the ideas they are spreading with rational arguments
• when someone blanketly condemns all counter-arguments (without a clear explanation)
• when someone forbids his followers to listen to any rational arguments
• when someone teaches and encourages their followers to use fists and/or guns instead of arguments

In conclusion, it will be useful to further note that countries and cultures often have the boundaries of idea tolerance set differently. And these boundaries also evolve and shift over time. But these are themes that open up many other possibilities. And so, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, we will not develop them now. I believe we will touch on them at another time.

Let’s summarize all this thinking about tolerance into one clarification and one rule.

Clarification: I can only tolerate a person if I have a problem, disagreement or conflict with them. If I am not in any such conflict with him/her, then there is no point in talking about tolerating that person. 
It is similar to ideas. If I agree with an idea, I have nothing to tolerate. I simply agree with it. But when I disagree with an idea, only then the question arises whether it is right or wrong to let that idea be expressed - whether it is right or wrong to tolerate it

Rule: Tolerate (respect) persons at all times by showing them respect and courtesy. Tolerate (allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good. Tolerate ideas you disagree with - as long as they do not lead to the destruction of tolerance itself. But only accept those ideas and opinions that are well-founded, well tested and as solid as possible.

Inspiration and sources:

• Beckwith, Francis, and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: feet firmly planted in mid-air. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1998 (link)
• Paradox of tolerance, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19. 5. 2021 (link)
• The Paradox of Tolerance, STR Podcast (link)