It has been a strange time the last week after the killing of Charlie Kirk (11 Sept 25) who was characterised as a major Trump supporter, killed by Tyler Robinson, characterised as a left wing domestic terrorist. Those from the centre are witnessing a complicated morality which exposes us to the Paradox of Tolerance.
Charlie Kirk murder
Kirk had suggested that that some gun deaths every year were an acceptable consequence of the “right to an armed citizenry”. He was murdered with a gun by a stranger at an event where he is speaking on that very subject.
Tyler Robinson’s motives are still not clear but he is thought to be in a relationship with a man transitioning to a woman and has allegedly stated about Kirk that “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
The story is fraught with contradictions. People who support Kirk’s view that gun deaths are acceptable are berating those who suggest that Kirk is a victim of his own philosophy. Meanwhile Robinson, who has supposedly found Kirk to be most hateful, has committed the ultimate act of hatred in killing him.
Meaning of tolerance
The word “tolerance” has a long history, coming originally from Latin. However its current meaning—the willingness to accept the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with—is only modern.
In 15th century English, tolerance first meant the ability to endure hardship or pain—strength in the face of suffering.
It then developed a religious sense. The English Act of Toleration (1689) granted freedom of religious worship to dissenting Protestants.
By the 18th century, it had developed a social meaning—the willingness to accept difference, especially in judging the beliefs and behaviour of others. This was the beginning of its modern association with freedom from bigotry.
A scientific meaning emerged in the 19th century as the “allowable amount of variation” in weights and measures. In medicine it came to mean the body’s ability to withstand a drug or poison.
Paradox of Tolerance
Kirk, a hardliner on abortion, gender, climate change, religion and race, was murdered by a man who wanted tolerance. It is an example of the Paradox of Tolerance.
The Paradox of Tolerance was first introduced by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies 1962:
“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.”
Popper suggested that if intolerant ideologies are left unchecked they exploit society’s values and eventually undermine or destroy tolerance itself. This can lead to authoritarianism or oppression. Therefore a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance.
A lesson to be learnt in the US right now.