Tags
Freedom, intolerance, John Rawls, Karl Popper, Plato, The Open Society and Its Enemies, the paradox of freedom, the paradox of tolerance, 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 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.”
__________
From Chapter 7 of Karl Popper’s notes to The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Several years after the publication of The Open Society, John Rawls took up the so-called “Paradox of Tolerance” but prescribed a different sort of state response to intolerant factions. For Rawls, the paradox certainly exists, yet it does not dictate we should practice intolerance towards those who are themselves intolerant.
While Popper looked to preempt intolerant groups from acting criminally — by advocating a sort of prior restraint approach — Rawls believed that action against intolerant sects is justified only when they pose a direct threat to the security of other members of a society. This approach aligns with the principle of stability of a tolerant society, which states that the members of an intolerant faction will gradually acquire the tolerance of society at large, and soon find themselves integrated within it.
darellovesantucci said:
Popper and Rawls both wrote their observations during the times that they lived, and, I do understand tolerance – I’ve always been able to agree to disagree; however, in the times that we live in now, we see the sciences evolving; from integrated circuits, to microprocessors; now, we’re entering into a new era with nanotechnology, wide-open digital communications, and further advances in Quantum Physics and Mechanics.
Yet, humankind, in many ways, is de-evolving – since we have computers, the children of today learn language and math in a different way – that, with evidence shown, really isn’t ‘hands on’, as it used to be. Also, the morals and scruples of human beings have de-evolved, in many ways. I see more children HAVING children, for example, and it’s not just because we hear about it from spin-doctors during a twenty-four hour, seven-day-a-week news cycle. These are times where the word that you highlighted in your post – the word, or action, of ‘tolerance’ – seems to be at an all-time high.
Greed has been around since time began – but, now, you can watch world markets turn on a dime, due to the digital technologies in communication that have ‘evolved’ – and, greed seems to be one of the major problems for people – and, corporations – who come from developed countries. Everything has become more than just The American Dream here in the USA – all you have to do to illuminate that point, is look at the population explosion in our penal system.
No one seems to want to be accountable, or responsible – for anything – especially if it is taboo to many developed cultures. That includes the nation where I was born, and have lived for over fifty years.
Interestingly enough, while our country still has many states that still have the death penalty for capital crimes, it still doesn’t stop the killing of innocent people – not by a longshot.
I, Dear Sir, am not a proponent for capital punishment. It doesn’t stop heinous crimes, and it ends up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars, while the guilty ones who were convicted try to appeal their sentences – sentences, that were handed down by a court of law.
Last, but not least, now that corporations in the United States have more freedoms than individuals do, I’m very worried (thank you, George W. Bush, and his appointees to the Judiciary branch of our government… separation of powers be damned). Since I’m a Democrat, and live in the Southeastern United States, I ‘keep my head down’, and follow how my parents – who grew up during the Great Depression, and World War II – taught me, as a child, growing up: “You don’t discuss politics, or religion at the dinner table.” When I do discuss those kinds of things, I do it online with my blogs, or, I do it with people who are of the same political persuasion that I am, in the real world.
In my humble opinion, love is the answer for all of the ills that occur upon our planet. If other countries could honor, and respect another country’s way of living, everything would be much easier, and dialogue could begin to seek out the differences between these nations, and, allow them to continue their way of life – as long as it doesn’t affect the rights of any other countries along the way. I believe that many people feel that I’m unrealistic, seeking ‘Utopia’ – but, we all need to come together, and love one another. That would be a huge beginning.
shannonjknight said:
Reblogged this on freckles.
Anthony Baker said:
I do find Popper’s words disturbing. The reason is that they are completely relativistic. There are no objective standards or rule of law mentioned, only the all-knowing god of “public opinion.”
Tolerance is a fragile balancing act: on one side is peace for all, while on the other the side is selfishness. There will always be those who want to tip the scales in their favor.