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.

Nation states, in particular traditional racially homogeneous societies in the West, are now tested with multiculturalism, thanks to vast waves of immigrants, resulting in significant demographical change and heightened racial tensions and challenging the traditional homogeneity of these societies.

Private property, which the Founding Fathers of the United States and other thought leaders of Western societies believed essential for preserving individual freedom, is now being threatened with abolition under the growing pressure of environmentalists, globalist corporations, international organisations, ie the World Economic Forum, and the insidious influence of socialist ideologies among local governments and institutions.

Modern states, whose sovereignty has long been characterised by a centralised government, territorial integrity, and independent political and legal systems, are being tested to be replaced by global mega-corporations like BlackRock and Vanguard. These corporations, with their vast resources and global reach, are increasingly influencing not just economic policies but also social and political decisions, challenging the traditional concept of state sovereignty.

Finally, humanity, regarded as possessing the integrity of both mind and body, is now being tested to transform into new beings, transcending the limitations of the human body and mind through technologies such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence (AI), nanotechnology, and cyborgism.

Crucially, how should society respond to a situation of continually increasing demands for public tolerance without knowing where to draw the lines?

Tolerance signifies a complex relationship between governments and the people. When people become intolerant of a government policy, the government needs to consider how far it can tolerate such intolerance. In the UK, a new term, cultural nationalism, has recently been introduced. This term refers to the belief in the superiority and preservation of one’s own culture, often at the expense of others. Thus, to claim that “Western culture” is under threat from mass migration and lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups is considered unacceptable and dangerous as it is believed to promote ideologies of terrorism. This categorisation is a litmus test for how tolerant the UK is of free speech in the face of intensifying anti-migration sentiments.

In such situations, public intolerance can be exacerbated, potentially inciting widespread discontentment, anger and even hatred. Public intolerance is often expressed through civil movements and disobedience, especially when critical values for their prosperity and survival are at stake. The public refuses to obey specific laws, demands, or commands of a government or authority, either through peaceful or violent means.

Currently, the relationship between the public and governments in the West is deteriorating in areas where the political integrity, competence, and accountability of leaders and institutions are increasingly being questioned, resulting in a decline in trust in government. It exposes a kind of mutual intolerance – the public is more intolerant of political incompetence and corruption, eliciting more widespread public criticism. This results in governments becoming increasingly defensive, proposing more censorship and punitive measures.   

This mutual intolerance has its blind spots, as many Western governments are uncertain about the extent to which they can tolerate public scrutiny, criticism and intolerance. Equally, the public is uncertain about how far their intolerance can go when their discontentment is further neglected, curtailed, or punished. Then, in an environment of such intolerance, everything gets out of control as intolerance becomes a blind, limitless and destructive force.