Philosophy
The Paradox of Tolerance and the Bounds of Open Society
Quick fact
The paradox was popularized by philosopher Karl Popper in his 1945 book 'The Open Society and Its Enemies', where he argued that unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance.
Why this is interesting
You believe in tolerance – but should you tolerate someone who wants to abolish tolerance? If you say yes, you may be handing them the keys to your open society.
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Paradox of Tolerance and the Bounds of Open Society
Think of an open society as a circle of people playing a game where everyone can choose any rule they want. That's great – it fosters diversity and free expression. But what if someone's rule is 'no more games, I'm taking over'? If you allow that rule, the game ends. The paradox is that a system that allows all rules cannot survive if it allows the rule that ends the system itself. In practice, an open society tolerates differing religions, political views, and lifestyles. But it also has boundaries: it cannot tolerate those who actively seek to use that tolerance to destroy the openness itself. For example, a democracy might limit hate speech that incites violence or ban political parties that advocate for a dictatorship. This is a delicate balance – restricting too much makes you no longer open; restricting too little may lead to the end of openness.
A deeper explanation
The paradox arises from the logical structure of tolerance. If tolerance is defined as allowing all opinions and practices, then it includes the opinion that tolerance should not be allowed. By tolerating that opinion, the society permits actions that will eventually eliminate tolerance itself. Popper’s solution: an open society must claim the right to suppress intolerance with the same force used against it, but only when intolerant views become a practical threat to public safety and the democratic order. The underlying principle is that for a society to remain open, it must be 'militant' or self-protective. This is not a rejection of tolerance but a boundary condition. The same logic applies to freedom of speech – you cannot allow a speech that directly incites violence against a group, because that speech uses freedom to destroy freedom. This concept is crucial in modern debates: how to handle extremist groups, hate speech, and disinformation that threaten democratic institutions. It challenges us to find a balance between defending core values and not becoming repressive ourselves.