Intolerance - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Intolerance, seemingly a straightforward denial of acceptance, understanding, or empathy toward differing viewpoints or groups, conceals a complex interplay of psychology, history, and power, often masquerading behind rationalizations and moral high ground whose underpinnings are far less firm than supposed.
The concept, while perpetually present implicitly in human interactions, gained sharper definition with the rise of organized societies and codified beliefs. References to intolerance can be found, if indirectly, in ancient legal texts such as the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1754 BC), where strict social hierarchies and punishments for deviation from established norms illustrate an early form of institutionalized intolerance. Later, the rise of monotheistic religions, especially Christianity and Islam, brought forth both unifying values and potential justifications for persecuting those deemed heretical, the icons of history that loom large in this context. However, implicit in the very concept of tolerance is the idea of subjective morality, which raises difficult problems of moral philosophy.
Over time, the manifestations and justifications for intolerance have morphed, although its central core remains disturbingly recognizable. The Enlightenment, while championing reason and individual rights, often excluded those outside of a narrow, Eurocentric worldview. The rise of nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries fueled ethnic and racial intolerance, culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust. Figures like John Stuart Mill, with his advocacy of free speech and the harm principle, argued against the suppression of dissenting opinions. Intriguingly, the very act of advocating for tolerance sometimes necessitates drawing lines about what cannot be tolerated, the paradox of tolerance, raising questions of moral hazard and the potential for abuses of power. This is often framed as a balancing act between tolerance and maintaining social order, inviting us to contemplate whether absolute tolerance is even a viable moral principle. Another important contribution to the debate has been Karl Popper, who points out that unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
Today, intolerance manifests in online echo chambers, political polarization, and the resurgence of xenophobia, all amplified by social media and cognitive biases. The legacy of historical injustices continues to shape contemporary debates about race, religion, and identity. The concept is now being examined through the lens of moral psychology, seeking to understand the roots of prejudice in human cognition. Is intolerance an inherent aspect of human nature, or is it a learned behavior? As we grapple with these questions, further investigation into the mechanisms and consequences of intolerance remains vital for building a more equitable and understanding world, especially as we increasingly navigate complex ethical quandaries involving ethics in AI and the future of social media ethics.