Tolerance and its limits

Tolerance is perceived as a noble term, a commendable virtue. It is commonly understood that the level of tolerance shows the size of one’s heart. The more tolerant one is, the more they are perceived as selfless and moralistic.

Perhaps the most notable description of tolerance is an intellectual attitude advocated by Aristotle, who stipulated that a mature mind is characterised by the ability to entertain a view opposite to one’s own without accepting it. This philosophical understanding of tolerance has deep roots in the history of social philosophy and political theory. Another great example can be found in the teachings of Jesus, who famously said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

In a secular context, Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance serves as a stark contrast. This paradox warns that tolerance without boundaries can be exploited by those who are intolerant, leading to its own downfall. In essence, if a society constantly tolerates intolerance, it risks being overpowered by those who seek to enforce their intolerant views. This perspective highlights the importance of establishing clear boundaries for tolerance, which, in turn, promotes a sense of security, order, and control within society.

Tolerance is a crucial aspect of democracy, fostering diversity in practices, cultures, and ideas based on the assumption that greater tolerance within society leads to greater enlightenment, harmony, and civility. Furthermore, it assumes that all parties share this fundamental social trait, demonstrating tolerance towards one another, not necessarily equally, but principally, as guaranteed by the Constitution and other legal and civil rights.

However, tolerance has its inherent dilemmas: What if the person or group expecting tolerance does not share the fundamental beliefs of such society and refuses to be as tolerant as others are? What if they attempt to impose their values being deeply incompatible with the established societal values by force or deception? What if they continue to be intolerant of the tolerant while advocating for tolerance to replace the tolerant eventually?

Free will and empathy are key components of tolerance. Tolerance presupposes one’s ability to exercise free will. Suppose a group or a society does not have the freedom to be tolerant or intolerant of something. In that case, this is not tolerance but coercive acceptance at best and forced obedience at worst.

Empathy, the ability to see things from the perspective of a different person, idea, practice, or culture, is a cornerstone of tolerance. It is not just a feeling but a crucial factor in fostering connection and acceptance of differences in society. The depth of empathy one can muster is directly linked to one’s compassion for and understanding of the other, making it a vital component of tolerance.

This empathy, however, carries vulnerability if one does not know where to draw the line. In this situation, one identifies with the feelings, opinions, and position of the other, failing to maintain objectivity — a recipe for burnout. This failure is precisely what happens when tolerance loses its distinctness from the very things it is expected to tolerate.

Blind tolerance, much like unconditional obedience, can be perilous. When the limits of tolerance are unclear, people can become tolerant of anything, leading to a situation where everything is tolerated and, consequently, nothing is truly valued or respected.

Ultimately, in any society, unchecked and unlimited tolerance poses a threat to those who are tolerant. In such a situation, tolerance becomes an imperative of survival, and a moral duty arises to reject the intolerable; failing to do so renders tolerance self-defeating.

The West is known for its long-standing tradition of tolerance, a legacy shaped by its historical roots, religious legacies, and Enlightenment ideals. These legacies have recently been challenged by movements such as Marxism, Feminism, the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, LGBTQI+ rights, and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). These movements, each in their unique way, have significantly advanced tolerance and acceptance in society. However, they have also pushed the boundaries of social norms and practices, testing the limits of society’s tolerance and acceptance.

For example, homosexuality and gay marriage, which were taboo over centuries, are now accepted as a different way of sexual identity and practice. However, transgenderism has become a newly contested area to challenge social tolerance, creating a certain level of social division and debate.