THE PARADOX OF TOLERANCE
Hannah Arendt, in her article Truth and Politics, published during the Eichmann trial, wrote:
" The traditional political lie, so relevant in the history of diplomacy and the art of government, concerned (...) secrets - data that had never been made public - or (...)intentions "of future conducts, political lies modern "effectively deal with things that are not secrets at all, but are known by virtually everyone"
Karl Popper The Open Society and its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, Vol. 1, 1st ed 1944, page 226:The so-called paradox of freedom is the well-known idea that freedom in the sense of absence of any restraining control must lead to very great restraint since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. This idea is, in a slightly different form, and with a very different tendency, clearly expressed by Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 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 even to suppress them, 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
anything as deceptive as a rational argument, and teach them to answer
arguments by the use of their fists. 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, exactly as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping; or as we should consider incitement to the revival of the slave trade. Another of the less well-known paradoxes is the paradox of democracy, or more precisely, of majority rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule. That Plato's criticism of democracy can be interpreted in the way sketched here, and that the principle of majority-rule may lead to self-contradictions, was first suggested, as far as I know, by Leonard Nelson. I do not think, however, that Nelson, who, in spite of his passionate humanitarianism and his ardent fight for freedom, adopted much of Plato's political theory, and especially Plato's principle of leadership, was aware of the fact that analogous arguments can be raised against any of the different particular forms of the theory of sovereignty.
All these paradoxes can be easily avoided if we frame our political demands in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism ;
that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate,i.e. who are tolerant;
that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public. And we may add that some form of majority vote, together with institutions for keeping the public well informed, is the best, though not infallible, means of controlling such a government. (No infallible means exist.)
In The Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls will respond to Popper, arguing that a society that does not recognize tolerance to the intolerant is by definition intolerant in turn.
However, Rawls concedes that a self-preservation clause is necessary. It is therefore essential to tolerate the intolerant until they actively constitute a danger to society and the institutions of freedom:
"While an intolerant sect does not have the right to complain about intolerance, its freedom should be limited only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason, consider that their safety and that of the institutions of freedom are in danger".
On Tolerance,1997, Michael Walzer asked: "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups that are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people can learn to tolerate, or at least behave "as if they possessed this virtue".
“Tolerance is a good pragmatic means to secure other values at this place and
time, given a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of tolerating others
in the context of our condition and desires. We tolerate others so that they will
tolerate us. Toleration is, in the long run, less costly and more profitable for us
than would be the consequences of intolerance. Tolerance, then, is useful in
establishing a modus vivendi among competing factions.”
This defense is demonstrated through the argument of John Locke, which he developed in A Letter Concerning Toleration and Second Treatise of Government. The problem of intolerance was attributable to the religious sphere primarily, as Locke argued.
Locke's "tolerance", however, was not universal. It explicitly excludes atheists, because, as is still commonly believed, they had no reason to be moral and therefore could not be trusted to be moral. And Locke's tolerance, like that of John Milton, excluded Catholics, who at that time recognized the authority of a Pope who was the prince of a secular kingdom and a rival enemy of power and peril of the British ruler.
Starting from a given symbol like September 11th, the topic of intolerance towards intolerant people was a favorite of the US and the world right. The subject of their "intolerance towards the intolerant" was Islam and this continues today.
The defenders of toleration based on individual autonomy argue that if individuals are going to lead fulfilled lives, they should be tolerated in their experiments with their lives. After the conceptual analysis of individual autonomy, John Stuart Mill’s defense of toleration based on this concept. The work in which Mill developed his defense of toleration most elaborately is On Liberty, 1859. According to Mill, tolerance is also required in modern society to deal with other forms of irreconcilable cultural, social and political plurality. Mill offers several major topics for tolerance. According to its "damage principle", the exercise of political or social power is legitimate only if necessary to prevent serious damage caused to one person by another, not to assert some idea of the good in a paternalistic way. Tolerance towards opinions is justified by the utilitarian view that not only true opinions but also false opinions, lead to productive processes of social learning.
Michael Walzer then reveals a main point from which to start reflecting on tolerance in a constructive way, that is, not considering it first in utopian terms: not falling into the trap of political correctness, which can suspend free reflection on the inherent differences in otherness, which is the subject of tolerance, and instead concentrated its practical limits and antinomies of the same.
Michael Walzer argues that there is no universal form of tolerance, but there are several that can be adopted in any context and time. Precisely because there is this fundamental impossibility, it is necessary to think seriously about what measures each State can take to improve the situation, bearing in mind that tolerance represents a good for Walzer is a necessity, since the alternative to it would be the perennial conflict. Democratic inclusion policies, greater secularism in school, even separation policies that help minorities to self-determination can be useful. All that is not in contrast with the constitution can be accepted.
The paradoxes of tolerance have a lot to do with the right to freedom of expression (which is a broader concept of freedom to speech)
Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law (ICCPR).
“Tolerance, inter-cultural dialogue, and respect for diversity are more essential than ever in a world where people are becoming more and more closely interconnected.” --Kofi Annan, ex-Former Secretary-General of the United Nation
“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
This last statement "Every citizen .... shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom is defined as law", is a great limitation: because it legitimizes the intolerant and the denialists, assigns to the magistrates tasks that are of historiography, creates alibis to the right that in fact attacks, in particular, the liberal positions, the universities even before the minorities. It allows racists to remain racist, as long as they limit themselves to not exceeding the limits of the law.
I do not believe that the law is the only and last bastion of freedom of expression against the intolerant, the professional haters, the denialists. The use of reason always remains the art of rational persuasion, the teaching of thinking independently and then drawing logical conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Pasamonik, Barbara
Social Studies , v95 n5 p206 set-ott 2004
Tolleranza per gli intolleranti? Una ragionevole apologia della
libertà di espressione
di Corrado Caruso
Commenti
Posta un commento