Tolerance and Pluralism

We tolerate only what we dislike

In Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which we read in Lecture 6, European society is described by “pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men”. Today we focus on the first three words of the list.

The word “tolerance” comes from the Latin tolerare, “to bear, to endure”. The old meaning tells us something important: we tolerate only what we dislike. We do not say that we “tolerate” our favourite music or a good friend.

The German philosopher Rainer Forst shows that tolerance has three components. Without the first, it is not tolerance but indifference. Without the third, tolerance would mean accepting anything, violence included.

Tolerance (Lat. tolerare, “to bear”): the attitude of not preventing something you disapprove of, because you have stronger reasons to let it exist. Example: you disagree with your neighbour’s faith, but you respect their right to practise it.

Four attitudes towards difference

The three components give us some useful distinctions. Tolerance is not the same as indifference, nor as recognition.

Intolerance means disapproving and trying to prevent, by force or by law. Indifference means having no opinion at all: the matter does not concern you. Tolerance means disapproving but not preventing. Recognition means seeing value in the other’s difference.

In the Republic of Moldova, speakers of Romanian, Russian, Gagauz, Ukrainian and Bulgarian live together, as do Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews and people with no religion. For us these distinctions are not abstract: we live them on the trolleybus, in our study group, in our block of flats.

Is tolerance too little?

Some critics say that tolerance is a “minimal” and even slightly arrogant value. The one who tolerates places himself above the one tolerated: “I let you exist”. Goethe wrote that “to tolerate is to insult” and that tolerance should only be a stage on the way to recognition.

The criticism is serious. Still, in a society where people hold deeply different convictions, tolerance is the minimum without which living together becomes impossible.

And a practical difference: recognition cannot be imposed by law. No one can force you to be glad about your neighbour’s faith. Tolerance, in part, can be required: the law forbids you to prevent them from practising it.

Critical thinking: a quotation that does not exist

On the internet and in speeches you will find the sentence “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, attributed to Voltaire. Voltaire did not write it. It appears in the book The Friends of Voltaire (1906) by the English writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who used it to sum up Voltaire’s attitude.

The lesson: a famous quotation is not automatically an authentic one. Before you use a quotation, check the primary source: the work, the edition, the page.

An argument resting on a name (“Voltaire said so”) collapses if the attribution is false, even if the idea itself may be good. An idea must be defended with arguments, not with a signature.

A century of religious wars

After the Protestant Reformation (1517), Western Europe split between Catholics and Protestants, and the Protestants in turn split into several confessions. Long and bloody wars followed: the French Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years’ War, which devastated much of the German lands, and the English Civil Wars.

Cuius regio, eius religio (Lat.): “whose realm, his religion”. The principle of the Peace of Augsburg (1555): subjects had to follow the religion of their prince. It was a solution for peace between states, not for the freedom of people.

In this context, the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), in exile in Holland, wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration, published in 1689, first in Latin and then in English. It is one of the founding texts of the modern idea of tolerance.

Two domains, with a boundary between them

Locke starts from a clear distinction between the business of the state and that of religion.

“I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.”John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689)

The state exists to protect civil interests: life, liberty, health, property. The church is a free society of people who come together to worship God in the way they believe is right. Each has its own domain.

The argument: force does not produce conviction

Locke’s central argument can be reconstructed in four steps, as shown alongside.

Its strength lies in the fact that it asks no one to give up the conviction that their religion is the true one. Even if I am sure I am right, I understand that I cannot obtain another person’s belief by force: I can make someone recite a formula, but I cannot make them believe.

Tolerance here rests not on doubt (“maybe I am wrong”), but on understanding the limits of power (“I cannot get this by force”). It is an argument that even a deeply religious person can accept.

An argument broader than its author

Locke was not tolerant of everyone. He excluded atheists because, he believed, someone who does not believe in God cannot be bound by oaths and promises. He also excluded those who owe obedience to a “foreign prince”, by whom he in fact meant Catholics. (The ideas are paraphrased.)

On the other hand, he demanded that neither Jews, nor Muslims, nor “pagans” should lose their civil rights because of their religion. Notice two things. First: an argument can be broader than its author’s conclusion. “Force does not produce conviction” applies just as well to atheists and Catholics.

Second: the limits of tolerance are always drawn by someone, in a particular context. The question “whom do we not tolerate?” must be examined critically every time.

A new danger: the tyranny of the majority

Almost two centuries after Locke, the English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) published On Liberty (1859). In the meantime the danger had changed. Mill feared not only the king or the church.

Tyranny of the majority: the pressure of public opinion, of custom and of “what is proper”, which can stifle individual freedom more effectively than any law. The phrase comes from Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America, 1835). Example: no one forbids your opinion, but you are afraid to voice it because the group will mock you.

Social media have given this pressure a new form: a wave of messages can “punish” an opinion within hours, with no law and no judge.

The harm principle

Mill proposes a simple criterion for deciding when society has the right to limit someone’s freedom.

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), ch. I

The consequence is important: a person’s own good is not a sufficient reason to coerce them. You may advise, persuade or warn them, but you may not compel them. As long as my actions concern only me, “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

Harm principle (Mill): a person’s freedom may be limited only to prevent harm to others. Example: you may smoke in your own home, but not in a hall full of people.

Harm or offence?

The principle immediately raises a hard question: what counts as “harm”? A blow is obviously harm. But an insult? A cartoon that mocks someone’s faith?

Mill distinguishes harm, damage to the real interests of others (safety, property, reputation), from offence, the fact that something displeases us or hurts our feelings. For Mill, offence alone does not justify a ban. Later philosophers, such as Joel Feinberg, asked whether some very serious offences should nevertheless be limited.

Try it yourself. (1) Someone posts a joke about a religion on social media. (2) Someone posts a neighbour’s address and photo and urges people to “teach him a lesson”. (3) Someone deliberately spreads the false news that a food product is poisoned. Where is there harm, where only offence, and where is it hard to decide?

Why no opinion should be silenced

In Chapter II, Mill defends freedom of thought and expression with a famous sentence.

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), ch. II

Mill gives four arguments, summarised alongside. The last two are the most interesting: they say that even those who are right need those who contradict them.

A student who knows why Moldova chose the European path only because “that is what people say” knows less than one who has listened to and weighed the arguments of those who disagree.

The root of totalitarianism: a single answer

The British philosopher Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) was born in Riga, in the Russian Empire. As a child he witnessed the 1917 Revolution in Petrograd, before his family emigrated to England. The experience of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century led him to look for their philosophical root.

In the essay “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958), Berlin finds this root in monism: the belief that all genuine values fit together in a single harmonious system and that there is only one correct answer to the question “how should we live?”.

If someone believes they hold this single answer, any sacrifice imposed on others seems justified: “for their own good”, “for the bright future”.

When values collide

Against monism, Berlin defends value pluralism.

“If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict – and of tragedy – can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social.”Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958)

Liberty and equality, justice and mercy, security and privacy are all genuine values. But sometimes they conflict, and then we must choose. Every choice means a loss, and there is no formula that removes the conflict.

A law that puts CCTV cameras everywhere increases security but restricts privacy. A tax that reduces inequality restricts economic freedom. Reasonable people can weigh these pairs differently.

Pluralism is not relativism

Berlin insists that pluralism is not relativism. The relativist says that no value is better than another: everything depends on culture or taste. The pluralist says that there are many objective values, not that there are none.

Gratuitous cruelty, slavery or genocide are not “another value”. They violate values that any human being can recognise. Pluralism therefore has a minimal common horizon.

Value pluralism: the idea that there are many genuine values, sometimes incompatible, between which we must choose, but also shared limits. Example: liberty and security are both good, yet torture is not “one option among others”.

Popper’s formulation

We now reach the question of the lecture. In The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Karl Popper formulated, in a note to Chapter 7, what he called the paradox of tolerance.

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. I, ch. 7, note 4

Popper was writing under the direct impression of the 1930s. The Nazi Party came to power in Germany by using the institutions of the Weimar Republic (elections, parliament, freedom of the press), which it then abolished. Democracy was destroyed with its own tools.

What the note says, read to the end

It is very important to read Popper’s note in full. He does not say that every intolerant opinion must be banned.

As long as we can counter intolerant opinions with rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppressing them would be a mistake. The right not to tolerate the intolerant arises only when they refuse rational discussion, forbid their followers to listen to arguments and urge them to answer with fists or weapons. (The ideas are paraphrased.)

Popper’s line therefore runs not between “good” and “bad” opinions, but between word and violence: between those who accept the rules of discussion and those who want to destroy them.

“Militant democracy”

After 1945 several European states turned this idea into institutions. Germany’s Basic Law (1949) allowed the Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional any party seeking to abolish the democratic order.

Militant democracy: a democracy that defends itself, for example by banning parties that want to abolish it. The term comes from the jurist Karl Loewenstein (1937). Example: the banning, in Germany, of parties seeking to abolish the democratic order.

The European Court of Human Rights seeks a delicate balance. In Handyside v. the United Kingdom (1976), it held that freedom of expression also protects ideas that “offend, shock or disturb”, since such are the demands of “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society”. In Refah Partisi v. Turkey (2003), however, it accepted the dissolution of a party whose programme was incompatible with democracy.

In June 2023 the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova declared the Șor Party unconstitutional, citing, among other things, illegal financing and actions against sovereignty and the constitutional order. Some saw the decision as a defence of democracy, others as a restriction of political pluralism. For us, the case is not an occasion to take sides, but a concrete example of Popper’s question: where does the limit lie, and who sets it?

Critical thinking: how the paradox is abused

The paradox of tolerance is often quoted on social media, usually shortened: “we must not tolerate the intolerant”. The short form loses Popper’s essential condition (refusing discussion and turning to violence) and can be used by anyone against anyone: every side can declare its opponents “intolerant”.

So when someone asks for something to be banned in the name of tolerance, ask the three questions alongside.

Without these questions, defending tolerance can itself become a form of intolerance.

Three answers to the question of the lecture

Must an open society tolerate those who want to close it? We can distinguish three positions.

Absolute tolerance: every opinion and every party must be allowed; only violence is punished. Militant democracy: the state may ban parties and speech that seek to destroy the democratic order. Popper’s position, read in full: we answer words with arguments and stop only the turn to violence and the refusal of the rules of discussion, through independent institutions and proportionately.

None of them removes the difficulty. Perhaps this is Berlin’s lesson: two genuine values, freedom and the security of democracy, can conflict. What we can demand is that the choice be made transparently, by rules known in advance, by independent courts, and that it can be challenged. These are exactly the elements of the rule of law from Lecture 8.

A motto and its legal basis

The motto of the European Union, “United in diversity” (in Latin, In varietate concordia), has been in use since 2000. It was chosen through a competition in which school students from the then member states took part, and it was proclaimed in the European Parliament.

According to the EU’s official explanation, the motto signifies that Europeans have come together to work for peace and prosperity, while being enriched by the continent’s many different cultures, traditions and languages.

The idea also has a legal basis. Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union states that the Union “shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity”. Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights adds that the Union respects cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

In practice, the EU has 24 official languages. Any citizen may write to the institutions in any of them and receive a reply in the same language, and legislation is published in all of them.

How much unity, how much diversity?

The motto seems to reconcile everything. Critical thinking, however, asks us to see the tension it hides. If unity is too strong, diversity becomes decoration: folk costumes at a festival, while everything is decided the same way everywhere. If diversity is too strong, unity becomes an empty word.

We can distinguish three models. Assimilation (the “melting pot”): differences melt into one common identity, at the risk of losing minority cultures. The multicultural mosaic: groups keep their identity side by side, at the risk of parallel communities that do not communicate. Diversity within shared values: everyone keeps their language, religion and traditions, but all accept the same fundamental rules.

The third model is, in fact, the legal meaning of the motto: diversity is protected within the values of Article 2, not outside them. We are back with Berlin: pluralism has a common horizon. “United in diversity” does not mean “anything goes”.

The Republic of Moldova: a country of diversity

Moldova is itself an example of “unity in diversity”, with all its tensions. According to the preliminary results of the 2024 census, of about 2.4 million residents counted (excluding the Transnistrian region), around 77% declared themselves Moldovans, 8% Romanians, 5% Ukrainians, 4% Gagauz, 3% Russians and almost 2% Bulgarians, alongside Roma and other ethnic groups.

The Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia has had a special status since 1994. Since 1996, Moldova has been a party to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.

A common language and the languages of minorities

The language question has been, and remains, one of the most sensitive. The state language is Romanian: in 2023 the legislation was brought into line with the Constitutional Court’s 2013 decision. Russian remains widely used in everyday life.

The philosophical question is: how can a state affirm a common language, needed for unity, and at the same time protect minority languages, required by diversity? European standards do not ask you to choose one of them, but to find a balance: citizens must be able to communicate in a common language, and minorities must be able to keep and pass on their own.

In your study group, Romanian, Russian and perhaps other languages are probably spoken. What does “tolerance” mean, concretely, between classmates with different mother tongues? And what would “recognition” mean? Think of an example from your own experience.