The Asymmetry of Tolerance and Intolerance
Tolerance is often celebrated as a cornerstone of liberal and democratic societies. It is the idea that differences in belief, culture, and identity can coexist peacefully under a shared commitment to mutual respect. Yet, there exists a profound and troubling dilemma at the heart of this principle, commonly referred to as the "paradox of tolerance." If we are to be universally tolerant, must we tolerate those who are intolerant? The answer must be a resounding no, and this rejection of the intolerant is not only justified but necessary due to a fundamental asymmetry between the positions of tolerance and intolerance.
At the core of this asymmetry is a simple but vital observation: the intolerant make the first move. They act not merely to express a difference of opinion, but to exclude, marginalize, and ultimately eradicate others who do not conform to their vision of the world. In this, their stance is not neutral or harmless—it is an active threat to the very fabric of a tolerant society. To tolerate those who seek to destroy the conditions of tolerance is a dangerous abdication of responsibility. It is not enough to claim that tolerance is a virtue; we must also recognize that tolerance, to be meaningful, has limits.
This point was most famously articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). Popper argued that "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance." If we extend tolerance to those who are intolerant, we enable them to undermine and destroy the system of tolerance itself. Popper’s insight is crucial, but what must be underscored is the sequence of actions: the intolerant strike first. Their actions are designed to exclude others from the same rights and protections that they enjoy. In this, they have already forfeited their right to be tolerated.
The asymmetry becomes clearer when we contrast the nature of the two positions. Tolerance, by definition, permits coexistence; it allows for a plurality of beliefs, lifestyles, and values to thrive. Intolerance, on the other hand, seeks to exclude and to eliminate difference. While tolerance operates under the assumption of shared humanity and mutual respect, intolerance functions on a premise of division and exclusion. The intolerant do not simply hold an opposing view; they act upon it in ways that actively seek to suppress and harm those they oppose.
John Stuart Mill, in his work On Liberty (1859), argued that liberty—and by extension, tolerance—must be constrained when it leads to harm. Mill’s "harm principle" is instructive here: while society should allow a wide range of ideas and behaviors, it must step in when those ideas cause real harm to others. Intolerance, when manifested in actions designed to exclude or oppress, clearly meets this threshold. To tolerate such harm is to abdicate the very principle that tolerance is supposed to defend—the peaceful coexistence of differences.
Herbert Marcuse, writing in his essay "Repressive Tolerance" (1965), took this argument further, warning that tolerance can itself become repressive when it is extended to ideologies that perpetuate domination and exclusion. Marcuse’s argument is deeply relevant: by tolerating the intolerant, we do not create a more open society; we create one in which the forces of exclusion and oppression are empowered. His notion of "liberating tolerance" suggests that true tolerance must be selective—it must liberate rather than repress. The asymmetry between tolerance and intolerance is precisely what demands this selectivity.
John Rawls, a champion of liberal pluralism, recognized the limits of tolerance in A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls proposed the idea of "reasonable pluralism," where society must accommodate a diversity of viewpoints, but only those that respect the fundamental principles of justice and equality. Intolerant ideologies cannot be included in the domain of reasonable discourse. Once again, the asymmetry is evident: the intolerant, by rejecting the core principles of justice, remove themselves from the moral framework that justifies their inclusion.
To tolerate intolerance is not an act of moral high ground; it is a failure to defend the values that make tolerance meaningful. Tolerance is not a passive virtue; it is an active commitment to preserving a society in which differences can coexist. When those differences are threatened by intolerant actors who seek to exclude, oppress, or eradicate, the line must be drawn. The exclusion of the intolerant is justified and necessary to protect the very idea of a tolerant society.
The asymmetry between tolerance and intolerance is stark and undeniable. Tolerance is a framework for coexistence, while intolerance is an active attempt to destroy that framework. The intolerant make the first move, and in doing so, they forfeit their claim to tolerance. A society that values tolerance must have the courage to draw this line, recognizing that the survival of tolerance itself depends on our willingness to exclude those who would destroy it.
