Deleted

  • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is referring to the paradox of tolerance.

    1. It’s a paradox because if you suppress other opinions you yourself become intolerant.

    2. I agree that actions have to be regulated as they are by laws. But opinions and thoughts are free and this freedom is absolute.

    Even Popper acknowledged that it’s a paradox and stated: I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

    These thought are also formalizef by Rawls: Rawls asserts that a society must tolerate the intolerant in order to be a just society, but qualifies this assertion by stating that exceptional circumstances may call for society to exercise its right to self-preservation against acts of intolerance that threaten the liberty and security of the tolerant.

    The dedicated reader might notice that he refers to acts of intolerance but not to opinions.

    Popper, Karl (2012) [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. p. 581

    Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 220