Both of their opinions may contain some different bits of the truth and the combination of their two views may fully elicit the complete truth on the matter of human caused climate change. This is because “Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness” (110). Therefore Mill would probably not take any action to stop Wolff from speaking his mind and would defend Wolff’s right to free speech while encouraging the two to debate the matter more comprehensively and see if aspects from each others’ opinions instigate change for one or both parties’ point of view as they attempt to uncover the entire truth regarding the …show more content…
Once that happens the opinion cannot be advanced any further because we assume that we are correct in our beliefs but assuming that we are infallible and correct in our beliefs can be dangerous. What if we have a belief that is actually false, but we are so confident that it is correct that we deny free discussion on the topic. To deny the freedom of thought on the issue of environmental pollution, for example, we also deny the ability to develop and defend our points of view, to correct our opinions on the matter, and to fully discern the truth from all viewpoints at hand. We may think that we are correct but as humans we are not infallible and need to be open to the possibility that we could be wrong. So there is a need for people like Rousseau to act as a devil’s advocate on issues like these so that free discussion can occur because without it we would not be able to advance our thoughts and beliefs as a progressive society trying to understand the entire truth on any matter at