The tolerance paradox It was formulated by the Austro-British philosopher Karl Popperand try to answer a very complex and always current question: in a tolerant company – such as the democratic one – What to do with intolerants? If in the name of freedom of expression we decide to tolerate them, we run the danger of reaching an intolerant society. The response given by the philosopher is that, to maintain a tolerant company, it is necessary to be intolerant with those who practice intolerance. But in this way The tolerant … becomes intolerant! And here is the paradox, to which the philosopher tried to give an interesting explanation, which we see in this article.
What is the paradox of intolerance
In our society today (not in all, unfortunately, but certainly in the Italian one) the freedom of expression It is commonly accepted and, indeed, fundamental prerequisite. A direct consequence of the freedom of opinion is that of tolerance, that is, the acceptance of conflicting positions, who do not align with his own. It is a concept that may seem obvious, but it is not at all! Especially if you consider the famous Tolerance paradox. The question is apparently simple, yet extremely complex: if in our society we accept the freedom of expression and therefore the opinions of others, we should also accept who practices intolerance?
To give a practical example that is extremely relevant in Italy: if we call ourselves tolerant, we should accept the opinions of those who professed fascist And practice intolerance? If we reply: “Yes, it is right to accept them as tolerant” the risk is that of endanger the our democracy. If, on the other hand, we reply: “No, it is right to be intolerant and do not accept fascist positions” we rise intolerant to someone, and therefore we can no longer call ourselves a tolerant society that practices freedom of expression!
It is this question tried to answer the Karl Popper philosopher In 1945 inside his treatise “The open company and its enemies“We see what he said.
Tolerance must have a limit: how to define it?
If we extend the unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant; If we are not willing to defend a tolerant company against the attack of intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them. (…) We should therefore proclaim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerant.
Popper’s answer was this: for save democracy and tolerance with it, we have the right to be intolerant towards intolerants. The philosopher therefore embraces the paradox so, to save democracy, the tolerant must be intolerant. In truth, this answer may not seem so absurd, we could think that it is obvious that those who professed ethically “bad”, dictatorial and discriminatory ideas should be stopped. The problem is that, generating the paradox So a tolerant must become intolerant to defend tolerance itself, it becomes difficult to establish when it is lawful to be intolerant and when not, and this is very dangerous for (very precious!) Freedom of expression.
This is why Popper continues his digression by clarifying that his words Not they imply they always have to suppress The manifestations of intolerant philosophers, or at least not in a first place. According to his thought, the first and fundamental action to defend democracy is to try to counter intolerant ideology with rational arguments, So as to be able to “defeat” this ideology in the eyes and ears of public opinion. The philosopher, however, also claims that the right to suppress These ideologies, if necessary.
This thought was very criticized by the thinkers of the time and also today, because it is based on the assumption that “where the reason does not arrive, violence must arrive”, thus moving the pitch of freedom of expression on the use of mere strength. Another paradox would open: whoever wins by force is because they are right to use it; Who is right can be violent.
How to solve the paradox: to preserve democracy
So how to solve this paradox? It must be said that a solution does not exist, but we can still do Some consideration. A possible way is to grant the democratic conditions of thinking and saying what you also want for those who practice intolerance, unless words follow the words violent actions to diminish or destroy a company built on tolerance. In a nutshell, if the violent action initially takes place from the inlerant, it will justify there reaction violent of the tolerant counterpart. Another interesting consideration is that, while the tolerant are placed in a democratic system in which they recognize and of which recognize the lawsso it is not for the intolerant, that he could ask another “paradoxical” question: not recognizing himself in the state and in his laws, the intolerant can declare that he is the first to have suffered a wrong from the system. And here opens another complex speech on the legitimacy of democracy, which is not accepted by those who are not democratic, or by those who are so much that it does not accept the presence of rules that narrow our freedom.
In ours jurisdiction, There is no social possibility of repressing with violence what is considered intolerant and dangerous. However, there are some laws who are at preserve democracy same. Let’s take fascism for example: it is not a crime to declare fascists or perform commemorative events, it is instead crime the manifestation of an intent of re -foundation of a match which supports the same ideals that characterized the time fascist It is a dictatorial dynamic. Unfortunately, however, it is not easy to dictate a limit, also in this case.
