The paradox of tolerance (Venue B:Starbucks)

THE VENUE: Starbucks

It's autumn so we will meet indoors for the next few months

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Starbucks location.

We meet upstairs at Starbucks. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: The paradox of tolerance

This week's topic has been prepared by Duncan.

Tolerance seems to be a virtue and something we might aspire to cultivate in our daily lives. But what is tolerance, or toleration (if there's a difference) ? The SEP article (link below) gives this definition:

"The term “toleration” - from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer - generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained."

We don't need to tolerate the things we like or approve of - like chocolate cake - but we might not tolerate things that we think are wrong and should be stopped, e.g. certain political ideologies. Somewhere in between these two are the things we disapprove of but are prepared to put up with.

But there's a danger with tolerating things, especially other people's intolerance. This paradox, as articulated by Karl Popper in 1945, suggests that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

To quote Popper himself:

"[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] 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."

Popper is thinking about Plato's 'paradox of freedom'. Plato points out the contradiction inherent in unchecked freedom, as it implies the freedom to act to limit the freedom of others. Plato argues that true democracy inevitably leads to tyranny, and suggests that the rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" (Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority rule.

Popper rejects Plato's argument, in part because he argues that there are no readily available "enlightened philosopher-kings" prepared to adopt this role, and advocates for the institutions of liberal democracies as an alternative. Popper defines the paradox of tolerance and makes a similar argument. Of both tolerance and freedom, Popper argues for the necessity of limiting unchecked freedom and intolerance in order to prevent despotic rule rather than to embrace it.

What then should we do when faced by something intolerable ? There's surely a difference between (for example) playing loud music on the bus, and encouraging violence towards to some weaker or marginalised group in a society.

What if we disagree on which things should be tolerated and which not, as seems to be the case here ? Should other people agree with you about the things you refuse to tolerate ? And if not, who is in the right and who is wrong ?

And what of Plato's point that unlimited freedom is undesirable ? Should we accept his suggestion, reject democracy, and find a benevolent dictator to rule over us ? Is it this that is driving the rise of authoritarian leaders around the world ? And has democracy failed (for the time being) ? Or is it the case, as Churchill said:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/