Compare And Contrast Aristotle And John Stuart Mill

I believe that Mill would definitely defend Wolff’s right to speak his mind freely in this way on this subject. Freedom of expression “being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself and resting in great part on the same reasons” (71) is practically inseparable from freedom of thought. Mill argues for both together saying that we need to have the freedom to think as we please and form our own opinions whether they be right or wrong and to be able to have free discussion forums to present our different opinions. The opposing views of others stand to challenge our current opinions on a subject and the ability to have a free discussion is vital to figuring out the whole truth. If we don’t allow for someone to speak his or her
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
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