Wong doesn't suggest that the justification principle is an absolute obligation (i.e., one that must be carried out in all situations). Instead, he suggests that we think of it as a prima facie obligation. In other words, the rule of tolerance and non-interference that it implies are obligations that must be weighed against the other goods and obligations that are involved in a particular situation.

For example, Wong suggests that we should consider how much harm will be done by the action we might interfere with. Is interference or non-interference the lesser evil?