Paradox of tolerance
Paradox of tolerance
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/6541859
Wiki - The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yeah. If you're in society, advocating for intolerance of others, you're breaking the social contract, so now I can stop tolerating you and tell you that you don't belong in society. If you say you don't accept the social contract you inherently don't accept society. It would be better for you in the wilderness. Wild beasts don't have to tolerate each other. You can live how you like and hate who you want.
I never signed a social contract. Your argument is invalid.
Unless, can you produce this social contract that I signed?
Can you share with me what the consequences are of this social contract that I signed?
What is the wording of this social contract? Can I find it online?
Do I need a notary public to sign this social contract if I find it something that’s worth my while?
Do you think contracts are things that people enter into without agreeing to them first?
Who is this contract with? Who authored this contract?
Who keeps this contract on file?
Most importantly…
Who wrote this contract?
Wow you're obtuse. Have you never had an abstract thought in your life? You can't see this social contract is a concept? It's a concept that explains that If we all stop tolerating each other we'd tear each other apart, destroy all the buildings and belongings and everything, and then you WOULD live in the wilderness if you lived at all.
If you refuse to be tolerant of your neighbors, or allow others to be intolerant of them, you are saying you're fine with a little bit of apocalypse happening. All those little bits add up and eventually destroying the social contract, destroying society, because it's the same exact thing. Society IS the social contract. It's not just buildings and roads and lights and pipes and farms. It's the agreement that we want those things, and that since we don't want ours destroyed we won't destroy anyone who doesn't destroy. If you're saying that doesn't apply to you, you're saying you have a right to destroy as you see fit. That's an amazingly brutal and egotistical position. Are you sure you've thought this out? That's a heck of a thing to make part of your personality.
You’re describing taxation. I’m not wrong.
If you’re the one who came up with this idea of a social contract, you’re certainly not selling the idea very well.
The "social contract" is a well-known term to describe the very basic idea of a society, no matter what your political or philosophical belief
Maybe you'd recognize it as "the golden rule" -- don't do things to people that you wouldn't want people to do to you.
This social contract isn’t something anyone has ever been able to produce. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which is presented without evidence (e.g., “the social contract”) can be dismissed.
The golden rule is “treat others how you would like to be treated.” and it’s not a great rule. The platinum rule “Treat others how they want to be treated” is far superior.
Yet, none of this has to do with the paradox of tolerance.
The social contract is a philosophical concept, Dipshit, one hundreds of years old. You can disagree with this concept, but unless you have something more than "I never signed a piece of paper lol," your disagreement can be dismissed as petty ignorance. Or maybe you're just trolling.
Thanks for linking me. You’re the first person to do so. Not trolling. This sounded like some BS someone made up. Then again, it’s philosophy, so it is bullshit someone made up.
Interesting idea though, because my points still stands. A “contract” is a really bad way of considering all of this. Without knowing personal values of the individual, and without stating what the stipulations of the contract are, the “social contract” can be literally anything the author wants it to be.
“Social contract” seems to be one person observing the status quo and encouraging everyone to maintain the status quo because it “was what we entered into as a society”. Example: “The police protect the people, because it says so right on the cars (‘protect and serve’), so we must respect the police, as they protect ‘us’ from ‘them’ (the ‘bad guys’). They’re ‘bad’ because they’re ‘evil’ and they know what they did”. So many issues with that: 1) police protect property, not people unless that’s people in positions of power, 2) the police (aside from the band) enforce the law, 3) what’s good and bad is a matter of personal opinion.
I am trying to understand how I could apply a “contract” to my life, one which I cannot read, one that I’m just told to obey, because there’s unmentioned consequences of disobeying said contract.
But the paradox of tolerance, is clear to me: you like tolerance? Good, your one ‘enemy’ so-to-speak would be people who fight against tolerance - the intolerant. Of course the question is then intolerant of what? Intolerant of pineapple on pizza - no harm done, except maybe to the sales of pineapple farmers. Intolerant of humans, as in, you want to genocide them - that’s a lot of harm to humanity itself and it should not be tolerated.
But where is the “contract” in any of this, when discussing how we deal with people who want to harm humanity by being intolerant of others? If we ask them, their social contract would be only 14 words long. That’s not a social contract I would ever agree to. And yet, any social contract I would write up would not be one they would agree to either. And yet, we both live in a society. Curious.
Please don’t mistake my reference to memes as trolling here, I am being sincere. If the idea of a social contract is just a metaphor, it has a lot of holes in it. I can easily get on board with ideas like the paradox of tolerance, the “golden rule” and the “platinum rule”, and short sayings like “your rights (to punch) end where my rights begin (my right to have an unpunched face)”. I can understand concepts like “law” and “policy”, “rules” - all things we agree to, with “law” being the closest to being a “social contract”; yet law can change, law isn’t morality, and law is actually written down (well, most of it anyway). “Law” looks most like a “social contract” in that we are automatically entered into agreeing to it by showing up in that jurisdiction (aka being born or otherwise being in a certain place).
Thank you for writing a thoughtful response! My understanding of the social contract is that it's an unwritten agreement that if you want to get the benefits of living in a society (being able to purchase food and shelter rather than having to live in the wild and make/get your own) you have to abide by its rules. Where the Paradox of Tolerance comes in is that being intolerant (in how you treat other people specifically) is disruptive to society, which breaks the social contract. There may or may not be actual laws broken when doing so, but you should expect to be shown the door (also links nicely with "freeze peach" arguments).
So this kind of comes down to the “is it ok to punch nazis?” question. It sounds like the social contract, being unwritten and thus open to interpretation says “No, nazis are part of society and society has laws and rules, such as not being allowed to punch people just because you disagree with them”.
Or, does it say “Yes, although nazis are a part of society, they are a part of society that doesn’t agree with the social contract that we should not harm others, and as such, we are morally obligated to turn their antisocial threats against them, even if it means that we are being antisocial to the antisocials”? Because to me that sounds like a paradox.. of tolerance.
My point has just been to say that this unwritten “social contract” is a dangerous idea to continue with, because it can be used in many ways. This thread began because someone mentioned that the paradox of tolerance is false, and that it’s a social contract. To me, that sounded like “no paradox here, if you punch nazis, you are a nazi, because it breaks the social contract”. Which at best sounds centrist, and at worst sounds like trying to create an environment where nazi ideas may be entertained.
Yeah, since the "social contract" is a concept, it will vary depending on what society or even part of society you're in. The Paradox of Tolerance specifically refers to societies that value tolerance of others - there's no paradox in a society that's just fine with being intolerant. When it comes to "is it okay to punch Nazis?", I'm of the belief that it's highly dependent on the situation. If you're meaning to just express displeasure in their ideology, the better way to do that is to collectively "show them the door," make sure they know that their ideas aren't welcome without resorting to violence. But actively oppose them and don't simply ignore them, because they will use any power given to them to suppress others. If the Nazis are violating your rights, then, yes, it's okay to punch them because they've taken a step over the line at that point.
“no paradox here, if you punch nazis, you are a nazi, because it breaks the social contract”
I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of what they meant because as I said, the Paradox of Tolerance only apples to tolerant societies, which the Nazis are demonstrably not a part of. And of course, breaking the social contract doesn't necessarily make you a Nazi. Could you break the social contract in a tolerant society by punching a Nazi? Yes, if you instigated violence without sufficient reason.
Seems like your biggest hang up is the word ‘contract’, which you have assigned a lot of concrete properties to. Would it be easier to understand if they used the word agreement, and described it in softer terms like the general agreement everyone in the world has that punching someone in the face is not an acceptable for of greeting? I mean, no one has said that, and you haven’t personally gone up to everyone and stated this and shook hands on it, but it’s still something everyone agrees on.
The social ‘contract’ is like that, it just uses an unnecessarily official sounding term in it, but ultimately is just the understanding that some concessions have to be made to deal with other humans. The terms of the contract are really to vague to ‘sign’, and when people start referring to more specific terms things can go of the rails pretty quickly, but there is still an implicit agreement. It’s like living in an apartment where you didn’t sign the lease…sure you’re not legally bound by the terms in the same way that someone who did sign the lease is, but your still bound by them in some ways simply by living in the apartment. In the same way, continuing to live in society is the way the ‘contract’ gets signed.
Yeah ‘contract’ is a terrible word to use here, especially in 2023. Oh sure if we want to discuss hunter gatherers, I can relax my definition of ‘contract’ a little bit, but we aren’t discussing hunter gatherers. We are on the internet in 2023 and we have better words to describe things, like ‘law’ and ‘governance’.
So, taking your definition, a ‘social contract’ is what Russia does to Ukraine when they say “this land is my land”. The Ukraians ‘agree’ or disagree, but since Putin wants that land, the ‘social contract’ is less of a ‘contract’, or an ‘agreement’ and more of a ‘command’ with a threat of violence. It’s just very wierd to discuss wars and modern day politics with ‘social contracts’. It’s such a very basic way of thinking about the world. “That’s the great thing! Ukranians don’t need to sign anything! In solviet russia, social contract comes to you!”
So, can we all please stop using this phrase ‘social contract’ to give our big-brained selves a pat on the back and instead talk like real people in 2023? I’ll start: Is it ok to punch nazis?
This has everything to do with the paradox of tolerance. It's literally its foundation.
For example, a healthy community would sanction someone like you until you ceased this antisocial and delberately bad-faith character you've chosen to be.
Let's start with my blocklist.
You’ve given me a great example of why contracts need to be in writing. Even if that “contract” is just a list of personal preferences. Such as your personal preference that you do not like my ideas.
But, they are in good-faith. I am not trolling.
It’s the same contract you ‘sign’ with your friends or co-workers. People, especially in this thread, break it out as some solid ‘thing’, but it’s like any other ethereal concept that gets referred to by a concrete word. English is hard and not every word brings along every element in every instance. You could say that an ‘agreement’ must have a written, or at minimum a spoken set of terms, but you could have an agreement not to physically fight someone just by a few movements of your body, and ‘break’ that agreement by broadcasting one set of signals and then taking a swing at them.
So, who is signing what contract with Russia and Ukraine? How do people agree or disagree with that contract? What options do they have?
Can we please call things what they are?