Lately, the word tolerance has been repeated like a mantra in political speeches, advertising campaigns, and everyday conversations. We assume that to have a fair and diverse society, where everyone can express themselves freely, we must be tolerant. And that’s true, but an uncomfortable question immediately arises that most people prefer to ignore: What about those who don’t want to accept those who think or behave differently? Should we tolerate the intolerant?
That was precisely the question posed by Karl Popper in the 20th century. This philosopher outlined the famous “paradox of intolerance,” stating that “To maintain a tolerant society, society must be intolerant of intolerance.”
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant and are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the abuses of the intolerant, the result will be the destruction of the tolerant and, with them, of tolerance.
The trap of unconditional tolerance
In the ancient world, there was no word that specifically corresponded to the modern notion of tolerance. This linguistic void in a culture rich in philosophical concepts and abstractions, as well as complex terms we no longer even use, reveals that perhaps its need was not perceived.
In fact, tolerance is built on its denial, as it emerged from intolerance following the dark age of religious wars that swept through Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. In other words, tolerance was the response to an urgent need to accept diversity in religious, social, and cultural contexts.
Today, there is great social pressure to be assertive, avoid conflict, and respect all opinions, even if those opinions deny others basic rights. The problem is that this approach can erode our ethical compass: it begins by relativizing the intolerable and ends by normalizing the unacceptable.
Popper was convinced that if a society tolerates absolutely everything, even intolerant people, sooner or later those intolerant people will destroy the tolerant people, and with them, they will destroy tolerance itself. Therefore, he argued that to preserve an open society, it is sometimes necessary to curb intolerance.
In other words, if we leave the door open to discourses and practices that attack the dignity and basic rights of others, we are facilitating the erosion of that freedom. It’s the social equivalent of asking an arsonist to hold the keys to a gasoline tank.
In everyday life, we also often confuse tolerance with putting up with anything, which can get us into trouble, especially because we fail to establish clear lines to protect ourselves. When tolerance isn’t accompanied by clear boundaries, it turns into permissiveness, and permissiveness is the ideal breeding ground for abusive behavior to grow or perpetuate.
On the other hand, it is no less true that Popper’s paradox can degenerate into a cascade of moralistic and puritanical behaviors. Who decides what is intolerable? If a person or group determines something is intolerable, can they lay down the right to be terribly intolerant?
This attitude, as philosopher John Rawls pointed out, also carries the danger that society will become increasingly intolerant because the boundaries of what is acceptable are becoming increasingly narrow.
Tolerance requires discomfort
First and foremost, it’s important to understand that being tolerant doesn’t mean accepting everything or giving others carte blanche. Rawls pointed out that we should allow intolerance as a right and a freedom, but only if it doesn’t violate the rights and freedoms of others.
However, it’s also essential to understand that to practice tolerance, we must be willing to accept things, ideas, or even behaviors that bother or make us uncomfortable. Because it’s one thing for something to make us uncomfortable because it feels foreign or different, and quite another for something to restrict our rights and freedoms.
A coworker may be listening to music of a genre you deeply dislike while working, wearing headphones. You may be uncomfortable with their listening to that type of music, but it doesn’t violate your rights. It’s another matter if they blast their music at full volume, preventing you from working and concentrating.
Reading political opinions on social media that conflict with yours may be annoying, but it’s not an attack on your rights. Receiving direct messages with threats or harassment is, however. Your partner may have a habit of getting up very early, even on vacation. This may be annoying if you sleep late, but it’s a legitimate difference. It would be different if they forced you to get up on time and prevented you from getting rest.
In fact, Popper didn’t advocate censoring or silencing intolerant behavior, but rather advised combating it with reasonable arguments. Tolerance involves allowing or accepting actions, ideas, or people with which we disagree and being willing to endure the discomfort this may entail, as long as the other person is willing to do the same.
Living in the paradox of tolerance
Tolerance forces us to walk a tightrope and navigate a fine line. However, instead of repeatedly asking ourselves, “What am I tolerating?” it would be better to shift our focus and ask ourselves, “At what price?”
So, is tolerance worth the price you’re paying? Maybe it is. Maybe keeping quiet about what doesn’t need to be said allows you to live in peace. Or maybe you need to say it because that tense calm is actually bothering you inside.
Equally important is to ask yourself: Is that person or group tolerant of you? Ultimately, tolerance, like love, is an active, two-way practice. It’s not passive acceptance, but a conscious and deliberate effort by all parties involved to balance justice. You can’t tolerate everything if the person next to you doesn’t let you off the hook. That relationship is neither balanced nor healthy.
Unbridled tolerance opens the door to abuse. In both personal relationships and social settings, this excessive permissiveness sends an implicit message: “You can keep doing it, there will be no consequences.” And from social psychology, we know that behavior that goes unchallenged tends to be repeated and escalate.
In fact, misunderstood tolerance can become a form of self-effacement. If you always give in to avoid conflict, your identity is diluted and you end up feeling voiceless. This internal silence, maintained over time, not only damages your self-esteem but can also lead to resentment and chronic emotional exhaustion.
Being tolerant doesn’t mean accepting everything; it means discerning what protects freedom and what destroys it. And in that discernment, setting limits isn’t authoritarianism, it’s self-care. Because in the end, true tolerance isn’t measured only by what you’re able to endure, but by your ability to preserve your integrity without destroying coexistence. Tolerance is an art… and like all art, it requires balance, technique, and, above all, intention.
References:
Popper, K. (2010) La sociedad abierta y sus enemigos. Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós.
John Rawls (2010) La teoría de la justicia. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Leave a Reply