Mill on Liberty Essay examples -- essays research papers

In Chapter 2, Mill turns to the issue of whether people, either through their government or on their own, should be allowed to coerce or limit anyone elses expression of opinion. Mill emphatically says that such actions are illegitimate. Even if only one person held a extra opinion, mankind would non be justified in silencing him. Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs "the pitying race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disaccord with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be unfeigned. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they befuddle no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with. Mill contends that such confidence is not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas. After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at possible criticisms of his reasoning and responds to them. First, at that place is the criticism that even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act on their "conscientious conviction." When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that teaching and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind. To this, Mill replies that the only way that a person crumb be confident that he is right is if there is complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs. homophiles have the capacity to correct their mistakes, but only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain open to criticism. Thus, t he only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to up chasten certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to step down these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly generalise the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes. Mill presents one possible criticism of this view. He writes that it could be asked whether it is essential for "true knowledge" for some people to hold erroneous opinions. Mill replies that having an increasing number of uncontested opinions is both "inevitable and indispensable" in the process of human improvement. However, this does not mean that the loss of th ink is not a drawback, and he encourages teachers to try to compensate for the loss of dissent. Mill then turns to a fourth argument for freedom of opinion. He writes that in the reason of conflicting doctrines, perhaps the most common case is that instead of one being true and one false, the truth is somewhere between them. Progress usually only substitutes one partial truth for another, the newer truth more suited to the needs of the times. Dissenting or heretical opinions often reflect the partial truths not recognized in popular opinion, and are valuable for bringing attention to a "fragment of wisdom." This fact can