The paradox of tolerance presents a contradiction: for a society to remain open and tolerant, it may need to be intolerant of intolerance. This idea suggests that a society offering unlimited tolerance will eventually be undermined by those who do not believe in it. If an intolerant faction is allowed to operate without restraint, it can exploit the freedoms it is given to dismantle the tolerant framework that permitted its existence, using the values of an open society as tools for its own destruction.
The Philosophical Origins
The paradox of tolerance was articulated by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper in his 1945 book, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper was writing after World War II, having witnessed the rise of totalitarian ideologies like fascism and Nazism. His work was a defense of liberal democracy against philosophies that sought to impose a single, rigid worldview on society. He was deeply concerned with how these movements had exploited the freedoms of democratic societies to rise to power and then abolish those freedoms entirely.
In a key passage, Popper wrote, “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.” Popper’s argument was born from the observation that certain ideologies are not interested in a rational exchange of ideas but in the acquisition of power to suppress all opposing views.
The Central Argument Explained
The logic of the paradox unfolds in a clear sequence. Imagine a society that prides itself on absolute tolerance, where all viewpoints are permitted to coexist without restriction. In this society, an intolerant group emerges, openly declaring its intention to create a new social order where only its own beliefs are permissible. Initially, the tolerant society allows this group to spread its message, believing that all ideas deserve a hearing.
The intolerant faction uses platforms of free speech—public rallies, media, and education—to recruit followers and normalize its agenda. As the group gains influence, it systematically dismantles the institutions that protect tolerance. The tolerant majority, bound by its principle of unconditional acceptance, may find itself without a philosophical basis to resist. By the time the intolerant group is powerful enough to seize control, it will have no reason to maintain the tolerant system that allowed it to flourish, and the open society will cease to exist.
Modern Applications and Misinterpretations
The paradox of tolerance is frequently invoked in modern debates over the limits of free expression, such as how to handle online hate speech, the de-platforming of controversial figures, and speech codes on college campuses. Proponents of placing limits on certain types of speech argue that allowing ideologies that promote violence or discrimination to spread unchecked poses a direct threat to the safety and liberty of marginalized communities.
However, the concept is also subject to misinterpretation. A common concern is that the paradox can be used as a justification for suppressing any opinion that deviates from the mainstream by labeling it “intolerant.” This creates a risk where defining what is intolerant can itself become an arbitrary and intolerant act. Critics argue this can lead to a chilling effect on legitimate dissent, where individuals become afraid to voice unpopular opinions. When misapplied, the paradox can become a tool for enforcing conformity rather than protecting an open society.
Establishing the Boundaries of Tolerance
The paradox distinguishes between tolerating intolerant thoughts and tolerating intolerant actions. Popper himself clarified this point, suggesting that a tolerant society should be prepared to counter intolerant philosophies with rational argument and public opinion. He did not advocate for the pre-emptive suppression of all intolerant ideas. Instead, he argued that the right to suppress should be reserved for instances when intolerant groups refuse to engage in rational discourse and resort to violence or coercion.
The line is drawn when intolerant speech crosses into incitement to violence or direct persecution. The philosopher John Rawls later expanded on this, arguing that a society should only limit the freedoms of the intolerant when their actions pose a concrete threat to the liberty and security of others. The paradox does not provide a license to silence those with whom we disagree, but a justification for self-preservation against those who would destroy tolerance.