Why a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance
Can a society be too open-minded? Philosopher Karl Popper argued that if a society is tolerant without limits, its ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. To maintain a tolerant society, the society must be prepared to be intolerant of intolerance. This paradox remains a cornerstone of modern debates surrounding free speech, hate speech, and democratic self-defense.
The Origin of the Paradox
In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper published The Open Society and Its Enemies, a work written against the backdrop of rising totalitarian regimes in Europe. Within a dense footnote in the first volume, Popper articulated a structural problem at the heart of liberal political philosophy: the paradox of tolerance. The paradox posits that if a society extends tolerance without any boundaries, its capacity for tolerance will eventually be seized or dismantled by those who reject the principle entirely.
Popper observed that an open society that allows every idea to operate without restriction creates an environment where anti-democratic and authoritarian movements can organize freely. If these movements gain enough influence, they can use the very freedoms granted to them by the tolerant order to abolish those freedoms for everyone else. Consequently, absolute and unconditional tolerance contains the seeds of its own destruction, leading inevitably to the extinction of a tolerant society.
Popper's Crucial Nuance on Rational Argument
A widespread misconception of Popper's argument is that it offers a blanket justification for censoring or suppressing any viewpoint deemed intolerant. Popper explicitly cautioned against this interpretation. He did not advocate for the immediate suppression of intolerant ideas whenever they arise. Instead, he maintained that society should first counter intolerant speech through rational argument, open debate, and the pressure of public opinion.
According to Popper, suppression becomes necessary only when intolerant actors abandon the rules of rational discourse. He identified specific thresholds where tolerance must give way to self-defense: when intolerant groups refuse to engage in rational argument, when they forbid their followers from listening to reason because they claim it is deceptive, and when they ultimately answer debate with threats, intimidation, or violence. Only under these conditions does a society have the right, and the duty, to suppress intolerance in order to preserve the open framework.