Putrid Politics: The Tolerance Paradox

I wrote a blog a while back about the difference between acceptance and tolerance. But since that one was mainly about the difference between acceptance and tolerance, I thought a new blog about tolerance specifically would be in order.

Tolerance is currently hailed as some universally good value. If someone is described as tolerant, it is frequently considered a description of high moral character. This is a bit of truth in this, but I think people miss the fundamental issue with assuming that tolerance is good.

What if someone is intolerant? Is it moral to tolerate their views, or moral to not tolerate their views because they are intolerant? General speaking, this is called the Paradox of Tolerance; that a society tolerant without limits will become ruled by the intolerant.

If we tolerate literally everything, then we lose any and all morality. Lying is tolerated, theft is tolerated, murder is tolerated… and the liars, thieves, and murderers come out on top. I don’t think it’s presumptuous of me to suggest that most people aren’t okay with this approach. Therefore, a line must be drawn. But where?

Some people suggest we should be tolerant of anything that doesn’t affect other people. Whatever is done in one’s own home, as long as it does not make victims, should be tolerated. I mostly agree with this from a legal standpoint, but lesser so from a moral standpoint. I don’t think we should withhold judgment simply because an action doesn’t hurt anyone except possibly the person committing the action.

Frankly, I think we can do better than simply avoiding damaging behavior. We should encourage beneficial behavior. I think tacitly encouraging low standards for our fellow man, especially young people, is incredibly destructive in the long run. If you tell a child they don’t need to work hard in order to be successful(or at least just don’t tell them that they do need to work hard), and they believe that, then they will face frustration in the long run. Success isn’t even guaranteed with hard work, and the constant lowering of standards means people will realize too late that they may have made a mistake and sabotaged their long term happiness. This doesn’t just apply to economic prosperity, but matters in our personal lives too.

We face a strange situation where the proponents of tolerance, in pursuit of increasing tolerance, advocate against tolerance for groups that have historically actually had more success in creating a stable society, which is why they are more prominent. This is a Paradox, and the suggestion that the real Paradox the political left is dealing with is actually that it is okay to be intolerant of ideas that are “dangerous” or “destructive” is nonsense. That is not the way it is practiced by the political left. It is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

Frankly, I think the political right practices this principle far more coherently than the political left. But I know those on the political left would disagree, because they have an increasing tendency to view words and ideas as violence that must be shutdown, with reciprocating violence if necessary.