“On the Axis of Tolerance: Can a ‘Right’ to Intolerance Be Defended?” by Hossein Dabbagh

What are the philosophical foundations of tolerance? How can a just and democratic society be established on the axis of tolerance? What should be done if tolerance turns into its opposite? Should we tolerate the enemies of tolerance? Is it contrary to tolerance to impose legislation or policy based on tolerance on everyone? What delicate balance exists between tolerance, freedom, justice, and democracy? In this article, I will attempt to answer the above questions to the best of my ability and demonstrate the complexities of practicing tolerance. My main argument is in favor of the claim that the right to intolerance can be defended, at least in some cases. Without this right, tolerance will not be preserved. However, a contentious philosophical dilemma remains concerning the justification of the right of the enemies of tolerance to express their beliefs. Can we recognize the right of the enemies of tolerance while simultaneously combating their beliefs and behaviors? At the end of the article, I will outline this philosophical dilemma.

Tolerance is considered the cornerstone of democracy because it enables the peaceful coexistence of diverse beliefs and behaviors. Tolerance is an individual-social virtue whose strengthening and application increases forbearance and patience in a society, thereby fostering a sense of respect among citizens. In this sense, tolerance is desirable in two respects: it is both desirable in itself and it brings about desirable outcomes. But why is tolerance desirable in itself? Let me delve a little into the philosophy of tolerance and its moral foundation.

Tolerance asks us to accept individuals and allow them to hold their own behavior or belief even when we strongly disagree with them. Tolerance means permitting or accepting beliefs or behaviors that we consider objectionable or unacceptable. But tolerance is not merely reduced to accepting the other; rather, it also carries with it a kind of opposition and rejection. In fact, tolerance lies somewhere between complete acceptance and unrestricted opposition to the other party. While we do not fully accept the other because their beliefs conflict with ours, we simultaneously do not completely reject and dismiss them because tolerance asks us to allow the other to hold their belief. It is a misconception to think that tolerance is a passive stance. Tolerance is an active moral stance, not one born of indifference. In forbearance, we pay attention to the values of individuals who hold different beliefs from ours, but we respect their autonomy even if we find their belief objectionable. This is the moral basis of tolerance, which is founded on the principle of respect for persons. Respect for persons means recognizing their autonomy and moral agency, which affirms their ability to act upon beliefs that differ from our own. The moral principle of respect provides a foundation for tolerating different beliefs and behaviors; it takes the autonomy of individuals seriously and recognizes their rights to hold their own beliefs and behaviors. Tolerance asks us to give individuals the freedom to live according to their convictions, provided they do not harm others.

Practicing tolerance and establishing it in society is desirable because it can build a stable and just society where all citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs, can participate. Tolerance leads to the peaceful coexistence of different worldviews within a shared political framework and emphasizes the importance of recognizing the other and respecting cultural and religious differences to guarantee individual and collective dignity. In a multicultural society, tolerance can be immensely valuable because it is essential for recognizing the equal worth of diverse identities and cultures and creates an environment where different religious traditions can flourish without fear of isolation and marginalization. In such a society, tolerance leads to social cohesion, but not merely by permitting diverse practices, but through dialogue and fostering mutual understanding. For example, in the context of religious diversity, tolerance must be understood as going beyond merely permitting different religious practices; tolerance also includes interfaith and secular dialogues to foster mutual respect and understanding. This approach can help reduce the likelihood of tribal conflicts and disputes.

Moreover, tolerance seems necessary for the protection of individual freedoms and for allowing people to develop and exercise their individual capabilities. A society that practices tolerance, by respecting and accepting different religious beliefs and practices, contributes to human flourishing.

In addition to being able to create a social environment in which individuals and groups can coexist despite deep differences in beliefs and practices, tolerance can be established at the level of states so that they rely on the principle of neutrality and treat all religions and worldviews equally. This neutrality is only possible in an environment where tolerance is practiced, as it prevents the imposition of one group's beliefs on others through state mechanisms. The state does not endorse or favor any particular religion, but merely protects. A tolerant and neutral state helps prevent religious conflicts and creates a public space where diverse voices are heard and respected.

Nevertheless, when tolerance asks us to accept the beliefs or behavior of those with whom we disagree and to allow them to hold their behavior or belief, it can seem, in practice, a demanding expectation for many. Understanding and grasping the concept of tolerance has always been fraught with complexity, epistemically and psychologically, because it carries within itself a form of contradiction. The tolerant individual, while being tolerant, practices two more or less tension-ridden attitudes simultaneously: on the one hand, affirmatively, they seek to accept and acknowledge that someone is permitted to live according to the beliefs they favor; on the other hand, negatively, they seek to reject and repudiate that very same thing because they deem the other person's beliefs to be incorrect. Let me explain further.

On the one hand, tolerance entails a degree of rejection and repudiation because the tolerant person is warranted in not accepting the beliefs of individuals that they consider epistemically incorrect. Naturally, if they did not deem those beliefs and behaviors incorrect, there would be no need for tolerance. For example, the statement "I tolerate and am tolerant of benevolent people" seems somewhat odd. The reason is that we inherently approve of benevolence and have no need to tolerate it. However, a secular individual might state, "I will tolerate chest-beating processions," or a Muslim might say, "I try to tolerate Buddhists." Here, the tolerant person considers a belief they disapprove of as worthy of rejection, yet at the same time exercises forbearance. But you might ask, fundamentally, why do we have a tendency to reject and repudiate certain beliefs? One answer might be that we do not want people whose beliefs we consider harmful to influence the process of society's growth and development. In fact, by rejecting and repudiating such beliefs, we intend to protect our society, and this desire for protection is largely understandable. For instance, we do not want a society where racial prejudice becomes the norm; or religious people do not want anti-religious practices and laws to become prevalent in society, or secular people do not want religion to limit and distort their freedoms.

On the other hand, tolerance requires a measure of acceptance, in that, when tolerating, we try to at least avoid the total rejection of certain beliefs and behaviors because we think that, despite disagreement, respecting individuals who hold different beliefs is valuable. Of course, this does not mean we accept every form of belief or behavior. Beliefs or actions that involve clear harm are unacceptable. For example, we do not tolerate the murder of innocent people and show our definite opposition to such behaviors. This means that tolerance faces limits: not all beliefs and actions should be tolerated, especially those that cause harm or undermine the fundamental rights and dignity of others. Determining these limits, of course, requires ethical examination, and a general rule cannot be issued for various cases. Nevertheless, the most important justification for intervening in individual freedoms to establish tolerance in society seems to be the prevention of harm to others. This principle can be used as a guide when we are faced with intolerance. For instance, hate speech or behaviors that lead to violence or discrimination can be justifiably restricted to prevent harm to others.

A tolerant person tries to combine these two aspects of rejection and acceptance, and it is the combination of these two that makes the practice of tolerance complex. Sometimes the positive aspect of tolerance prevails, sometimes the negative aspect. In many cases, we begin with a rejectionist view and gradually turn toward accepting the other.

For example, we might suppose that our religious conduct is the only "real" religion on the face of the earth, which everyone should recognize and follow, and for this reason, we have reasons to reject the religious beliefs of others. But gradually, through experience, we realize that this rejectionist view has a very high cost and may lead to sectarian and tribal bloodshed. For this reason, we restrain our rejectionist view and turn toward accepting others, even though we do not epistemically accept their religious beliefs.

But you might ask why we should fundamentally tolerate and accept others when we disagree with them? If we consider our own values valid and correct, why should we limit ourselves and allow others to advance their values? The answer still seems to be the desire to protect society and our surrounding environment. The value of tolerance lies precisely in this: it gives all members of society the "right" to participate in its destiny. This recognition of the rights of individuals is a fundamental matter that stands above conflicts and disagreements. Without tolerance, we are always in a state of competition and fighting over our territory. You might object that we are still competing even with tolerance. Yes, that is true, but the difference is that with tolerance, we recognize the fundamental right of everyone to participate and do not seek to eliminate the rival. Amidst disagreement, we live alongside one another and take the "right" to be different seriously.

What tolerance fundamentally demands of us is accepting this very point that citizens have an equal right to participate in the destiny of society. In addition to recognizing the political and legal rights of individuals in society, tolerance gives members of society an equal opportunity to participate in determining their society's future. This participation is not limited only to formal politics but, even more importantly, relates to informal politics and the social life of individuals. In the eloquent phrasing of T.M. Scanlon in the book The Difficulty of Tolerance,

A tolerant society is democratic not only in its formal politics but also in its informal politics (p. 190).

The main characteristic of a democratic society is that it takes the equality of individuals seriously and recognizes it.

Nevertheless, when we think about implementing and promoting tolerance in society, we face two operational and philosophical dilemmas. The difficulties we encounter in practicing tolerance arise from several sources. One source concerns our dogmatic moral beliefs, which can be challenging for a tolerant society. Consider, for example, the issue of abortion. Individuals who are strongly opposed to abortion may find it morally abhorrent and have serious difficulties with its legalization. But if we believe that tolerance requires recognizing the moral agency of others, even when their behavior contradicts our moral beliefs, then we must bear in mind that others have the right to make their own moral decisions. As another example, consider the issue of the Islamic hijab in contemporary Iran. Religious individuals who believe that the hijab should be mandatory for everyone find it difficult to accept that others may not observe such an obligation. Tolerance demands that we accept that others do not share our religious beliefs and can act according to their own beliefs, even if they are in the "minority." Another source can be related to our unregulated emotions towards others. We face significant psychological challenges in building a tolerant society. Emotions such as fear, hatred, or disgust can disrupt tolerance. For instance, xenophobia—the fear or hatred of strangers—can lead to intolerance towards immigrants. Overcoming these psychological barriers requires moral reasoning as well as cultivating empathy and emotional regulation. Recognizing the humanity and moral worth of those who are different can help reduce these negative feelings.

In addition to the operational dilemma, we also face a very important philosophical dilemma: regardless of the paradoxical appearance that exists in the practice of tolerance, as mentioned above, tolerance can be self-defeating, such that its unlimited application turns it into its opposite. That is, when we proceed in the practice of tolerance without any stopping point, it is likely that intolerance and lack of forbearance will take its place. This point is the argument that Karl Popper made in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. He rightly argues that if tolerance is applied without limits, it will gradually lead to the disappearance of tolerance. Tolerance towards the enemies of tolerance and intolerant people can ultimately push society out of the orbit of tolerance and make the forbearance of others impossible (p. 581).

For example, suppose in a society only one political party is allowed to operate, and the rest of the people are not entitled to political participation. If this deprivation of rights is tolerated and we are tolerant of it, it is likely that many people will lose trust and respect for one another, and fragmentation will occur in society. This fragmentation and lack of respect will make the exercise of tolerance difficult. The conclusion of Popper's argument is that we should not move on the axis of tolerance in the face of the enemies of tolerance. It is as if we have a right called the right to intolerance to confront intolerant people. But can such a right be defended philosophically? If yes, why? If no, what should be done in the face of intolerant people who, with their beliefs and behaviors, claim victims and cause some harassment and harm? Furthermore, is not the legalization of tolerance and forcing others to observe tolerance and preventing intolerant behaviors itself a form of intolerance? Is the promotion of tolerance as an official theory unjustified?

Promoting, emphasizing, and even imposing tolerance is not an intolerant act, because tolerance, by definition, recognizes the equal rights of individuals in society and does not deprive anyone of their moral and legal standing within the community. It grants us standing to the extent that we have a right to it, while also granting the same right to others. Thus, the implementation and enforcement of tolerance does not contradict the fundamental values of tolerance. However, the unlimited implementation and enforcement of tolerance may lead to the weakening of tolerance. It seems that to resolve the paradox of tolerance’s self-destructiveness, we have no choice but to defend the right to intolerance. It is by assuming such a right that the principle of tolerance will be preserved. We must not tolerate the enemies of tolerance, and we must not endure intolerant behaviors. We are responsible for the potential victims of intolerant behaviors, and defending the right to intolerance provides us with the opportunity to protect them. But the problem here is that by defending such a right, we are, in fact, not giving the enemies of tolerance an equal opportunity to express their beliefs and act upon them, and this may conflict with the principle of tolerance. Is this so? Is not providing equal opportunities to those who are not tolerant itself a form of intolerance?

In response, we must first distinguish between belief and action. It is likely that a belief, however intolerant, may be tolerated by many, but as soon as that belief takes on a practical aspect and becomes a social behavior, tolerating it becomes difficult. For example, a Muslim individual might believe that all non-Muslims are fuel for hell and will one day burn in the fire. It is true that this belief is intolerant and requires education to cultivate empathy, but as long as the individual keeps it to themselves, perhaps not much intervention is needed. But as soon as this individual puts such a belief into practice and tries to eliminate non-Muslims from society, intervention certainly becomes necessary. In fact, according to the harm principle mentioned above, we are obliged to intervene.

Secondly, it may appear on the surface that by emphasizing the right to intolerance, equal standing is taken away from the enemies of tolerance, because others have the opportunity to express their views while they do not. But in reality, this is not the case; how can a belief or action that negates the standing and position of oneself and others be respected, especially when we had established that everyone must be respected and recognized because they enjoy equal rights? Those who abandon tolerance, in fact, by their own choice, send the message to society that we do not deserve equal respect. In reality, it is they themselves who, through their behavior, create the right to intolerance for others. Just like individuals who storm into others' homes to steal and deprive themselves of the right to legitimate defense, individuals who, through intolerance, do not recognize the rights of others, in fact, deprive themselves of the right to equal opportunity.

Nevertheless, some philosophers, such as Tim Scanlon, have suggested that to overcome the philosophical dilemma of tolerance when equal opportunity is taken from individuals who do not practice tolerance, it is better to distinguish between the principle of the belief and the person holding the belief. It is reasonable not to tolerate a message or belief with intolerant content, but this does not mean that we should not grant the right to be heard to the individuals who hold such a belief. In situations where we are faced with intolerance, we do not respect the content of the intolerant message, and not necessarily the individuals themselves who hold such a belief. The issue is not merely that the views of these individuals should not be tolerated, but that these individuals, purely as citizens of society, have the right to be heard (The Difficulty of Tolerance, p. 197).

It is true that these individuals hold an intolerant view, but as citizens, they have the right to be seen.

But is such a separation really feasible in practice? Can we, in practice, distinguish between the content of a belief and the person who holds it? Suppose someone advocates female genital mutilation. Suppose also that female genital mutilation violates the rights and dignity of girls. Can we respect such a person and distinguish between their belief and the content of their belief or action? As another example, suppose someone advocates racial discrimination, and we believe that racism tramples the principle of equality and human dignity. For this reason, we fight against racism, because tolerating an action that promotes intolerance is itself an anti-tolerant act. But while fighting racial discrimination to protect the rights of marginalized groups, can we distinguish between the personality of racists and the content of their belief or action? It seems very difficult to distinguish between the intolerant individual and the content of their belief or action. The general psychology of most of us is such that we readily tunnel from someone's belief to their personality and bridge from their personality to their beliefs. This cycle seems self-evident in many minds, so much so that it is hard to imagine a person being respectable while their beliefs are disrespectable, and vice versa.

Perhaps resorting to such a cycle is justified, and at least sometimes one can bridge between someone's belief and their personality. Perhaps resorting to such a cycle is invalid and must be dismantled so that tolerance can be more easily established in society. What is important for our discussion is the point that if we cannot dismantle this cycle, we will reach an impasse, in that we cannot recognize the rights of individuals who trample tolerance, and thus we cannot provide a democratic and equal society. To the extent that we can respect the rights of the enemies of tolerance while simultaneously standing up against their tolerance-eroding beliefs by resorting to the right to intolerance, it is likely that we can arrange a more equal and just society. If, by resorting to the right to intolerance, we collectively reject both the personality of the tolerance-eroders and their beliefs together, it is likely that we cannot build a democratic society. Let me clarify the abstruseness of this philosophical dilemma with two examples and conclude the article.

Suppose in a society some artists use their artworks to express controversial statements; for instance, they mock religious figures. On the one hand, tolerance towards these artists is vital for preserving the principle of freedom of expression. On the other hand, it is natural that some religious (or even non-religious) individuals consider these works offensive and demand their removal. Can the right to intolerance be invoked and these works be removed on the pretext that they promote hate speech? Suppose that some of these works have indeed gone beyond the bounds of tolerance, and consequently, the right to intolerance can be invoked. But can we separate the artistic message of these artists from the artists themselves? If yes, can we grant these artists, as citizens, the right to be heard even though the content of their message is not tolerant? Would our society not become more tolerance-seeking this way?

As another example, consider fundamentalist groups that often reject the legitimacy of other groups' beliefs and seek to impose their own beliefs through political means. If we hold, within a legal framework, that the right to intolerance can be invoked, can we distinguish between the message of fundamentalists and their personality? Can we grant them the right to be heard even though the content of their belief and action is intolerant? Is it feasible to grant these individuals the right to be heard and, alongside that, resort to educational programs that emphasize the value of diversity and mutual respect? Or is it better not to grant such a right to these individuals in the first place? Which path makes our society more tolerance-seeking?

I know I am leaving you with a philosophical dilemma. Let me conclude the article by summarizing my remarks. Tolerance means permitting and respecting beliefs and behaviors that differ from our own, and it is often regarded as a precondition for a stable society. Tolerance is not a passive acceptance of differences; rather, it provides an opportunity to actively respect the moral agency of all individuals in society. In a world facing increasing polarization and cultural conflicts, the practice of tolerance and the effort required to implement it seem more necessary than ever. Managing the complexities and difficulties of seeking tolerance brings us closer to a freer and more just society.