Naked Philosophy: Utilitarianism, the Paradox of Tolerance, and Ted

Naked Philosophy is a series of articles by Amanda Yearling that will examine current problems/events under a philosophical lens.

Warning: This article contains language and themes some may consider offensive.

What if society was reduced to an island of 100 people. And 99 people there were non-violent, tolerant people. You could marry who you wanted, you could manage your health without influence, and live out your life in a utopia of choice. However, there is one member of this utopia who is violent and intolerant. This one person, let’s call him Ted, believes everyone should follow the rules he says should be in place. Ted’s moral code may work perfectly for him, but it’s not a one size fits all.

For example, Ted may believe it’s not okay for two men to marry. He finds two men holding hands gross and doesn’t want to see it. He pushes his society to create laws that don’t allow two men to marry. This has caused major rifts in society as Ted gets more violent and angry because the other members won’t follow his moral code. What should society do about the constant rifts between the non-violent and tolerant 99 members of society, and the one intolerant member?

If the island society were to conduct its affairs using the philosophy of Utilitarianism, they would look at what would create the most pleasure or good with the least amount of pain or bad. Utilitarianism is the concept that in any given situation, whether it’s dealing with an intolerant Ted or picking a restaurant for the group to go to, you should choose the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarianism states that your interests and choices count, but no more than anyone else’s. So if you want Chinese food for dinner, but people in your group hate Chinese food, you don’t pick the Chinese restaurant. You try to find something that everyone can at least enjoy. Unknowingly you have practiced utilitarianism.

Ted and society are experiencing the Paradox of Tolerance. What would happen to the island society if Ted gets more violent and intolerant of his neighbors while the whole of society sticks to their principles of tolerance and non-violence? Eventually, that tolerant society would break down and be destroyed. According to 20th-century philosopher Karl Popper, unlimited tolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance. Any movement that preaches intolerance and oppression should not be tolerated. To allow the oppressive movement to continue will eventually destroy the tolerant.

Ted has threatened his gay neighbors with violence whenever he sees them. He insults them to other people wishing his gay neighbors would stop holding hands or kissing when walking down the street. Meanwhile, he has no problem with holding hands or kissing his wife while out in public. So what does society do?

They could lock Ted up every time he acts in a way that is threatening or violent. They could socially eject him when he acts inappropriately. Not welcoming him to social events or even giving him a cold shoulder. They could ultimately put him to death if his violence hurt enough people. There are many options of varying degrees.

Now a tolerant society probably wouldn’t want to put Ted to death, but if the violence escalated to the point where it would cause more good for Ted simply not to be there anymore? Then in the eyes of utilitarianism, it would be moral for the island society to put Ted to death. A tolerant society can accept ideas that don’t threaten others’ existence. Tolerance can’t be used as an argument to defend oppressive religions or ideologies. So whatever the choice the island society takes, it must do something because doing nothing is not going to solve anything.

So how do we deal with the “F*ck your feelings” intolerant Teds of our society? It can be as simple as shutting down that intolerant attitude on a social media site, attempt to educate them, writing articles like this, or simply ‘shhing” them and not accepting that kind of discourse into our societal conversation, up to holding them legally accountable for their actions. Either way, to build a tolerant society that is welcoming and open, we must be willing to shut down behavior that threatens to oppress the rest of us.

Amanda Yearling is a librarian and writer who has made Three Rivers her home.


Any views or opinions expressed in “Naked Philosophy” are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Watershed Voice staff or its board of directors.