The Limits of Tolerance

When machine parts rub,
More tolerance is needed
So it is in life.

tolerate:  “allow the existence of something that one dos not necessarily like or agree with without interference.”

We generally think of tolerance as a desirable personal and societal trait.  Some hold it as one of the most important.  Why is tolerance held in high regard by many?  In modern societies intolerance is regarded as a sign of prejudice that can lead to discrimination by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or in the worst cases lead to assault, murder and genocide.  On the other hand, most might worry that tolerance taken to the extreme would cause us to tolerate the perpetrators of these very worst crimes of society.  This points out a paradox associated with tolerance, which basically says that in order for a society to remain tolerant it must NOT tolerate those who are intolerant (or worse), or the intolerant individuals may take over and destroy the tolerant society.   So to preserve a tolerant society there has to be some limit on that tolerance, which begs the question: how do we decide what that limit should be and who makes that decision? 

In his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson addressed the question of how to deal with those who might destabilize the republic and its unity when he said, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”  Jefferson’s statement argues that we might tolerate those that threaten to tear down a tolerant society so long as there is a forum for reason to prevail.  And in confronting these individuals with the power of reason we can make them examples of how not to think, speak and act.  But certainly in many cases we need to do more than confront hateful actions and speech with reason.   For sure we should demand society punish and incarcerate those who commit violent assaults and murder.  And surely we should not tolerate stealing or slander or libel.  And yet there are some forms of violence (such as self defense) and some forms of lying (untruths that do not harm others) that are tolerated by our morals and laws.  So is there a criteria that we can use to define the limits of tolerance?

I would argue that whether an action or speech or writing does direct harm to others is the criteria that defines the boundary between tolerance and intolerance.    Further, I would specifically exclude thoughts or motivations from being the object of our intolerance.  Nor should race, religion, sex, sexual preference or other natural human characteristic be used to determine what we will not tolerate.  If someone directly harms another by their action, speech or writing, we should not tolerate that action, speech or writing.  

Now let us categorize what we shall include in the meaning of the term “harm.”  Certainly harm must include direct physical and mental harm that meets some minimum threshold of severity and likelihood.  And I would argue that actions and speech that have an adverse impact on individual’s human rights also constitute harm.  We are fortunate that we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, to stand as a definition of what we mean by human rights.  I think it is equally important to define what is not included by the term “harm” lest we over react and severely limit what we will tolerate to the point where we are more intolerant than tolerant.  The less we tolerate the greater our infringement on individual freedom and liberty, which are certainly characteristics of our society that stand in importance with tolerance itself.  If it is a tolerant and free society that we desire there can not be unnecessary limits on our tolerance.  “Harm” cannot be defined to include speech or actions that simply offend some person’s idea of “proper” behavior or political correctness.  Intolerance of an individual’s speech, writing or action must be tempered to avoid Infringement of an individual’s liberty in all but specifically legally defined circumstances. 

To further define the limits of tolerance we need to distinguish between individual tolerance and societal tolerance.  First, an individual”s tolerance setting might be very different than society”s tolerance setting.  Second, there is a difference in how societies and individuals are allowed to respond to an intolerable act.  When society determines that it will not tolerate a specific act, speech or writing, it can impose a penalty on the offender and by doing so infringe on the freedoms of the offending person.  An individual’s intolerance of another individual’s acts, speech or writing can not cary with it any penalty greater than a rebuke, except in cases where action is required to prevent immediate harm to some person. This limit on retribution must stand as a firm limit on individual intolerance because only society is allowed to punish and infringe on individual freedom.  How does a society make these decisions to define, prosecute and punish intolerable actions, speech and writing?  These decisions require rules of law created on the authority of all the members of the society, not just elitist authoritarian governors.  In other words, tolerant societies must be representative and democratic and governed by the rule of law.  Furthermore, society must not be allowed to infringe on the human rights of its members.  To be specific, we are talking about the human rights put forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

We have said that we would expect any individual’s tolerance settings might be different than a society’s.  In fact, it is a hallmark of a tolerant society that the individuals in that society represent a diversity of opinions, which include different tolerance settings, which are in turn tolerated by the rules of the society so long as the speech, writings, and actions of the individuals do not cause direct harm to other members of the society.  So what does a successful tolerant society look and feel like in practice?  It is messy and contentious!  A tolerant society is always examining the line between tolerance and intolerance, and at the same time seeking to preserve diversity while striving towards unity.  It is a society that follows the rule of law while constantly arguing what that rule of law should be.  There is argument and dissension and yet there is a firm belief that human rights shall be preserved for all!