John Stuart Mill Argument For Freedom Analysis
a) Explain, using your own examples, John Stuart Mill's case for freedom of expression.
John Stuart Mill was a Utilitarian, believing that all ethical questions should be decided by applying the Principle of Utility. This principle states that the morally correct action in any situation is that which will increase happiness for the greatest number of people.
Actions are right in proportion that they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
From Warburton, N. (2007, 4th edn ), Arguments for Freedom, The Open University p 61.
Mill's use of the word happiness differs from the everyday usage, he includes the intellectual higher pleasures of thought and prioritises them over the lower pleasures of the senses.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know …show more content…
their own side of the question.
Ibid., p 62.
This statement also demonstrates the great value which Mill places on the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Though not stated explicitly, his view that seeking truth is fundamental to“the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”(Ibid., p 62) is central to his defence of freedom of speech. Mill expands on this later explaining that freedom of speech is a vital condition in developing a thinking culture.
...in a general atmosphere of mental slavery… there never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere an intellectually active people.
Ibid., p 87.
Mill believed that allowing a wide range of negative freedoms would increase general happiness.
Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
Ibid., p 63.
Working from this belief Mill goes on to state that the only instance in which an authority can be justified in removing negative freedoms from an individual, is when it is deemed that their actions will harm others.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Ibid., p 57. Consistently underpinning Mill's arguments for the preservation of negative liberties are his Utilitarian views. Mill applies the harm principle both to demonstrate the case for freedom of speech and to highlight instances in which it should be suppressed.
Mill argues that fallibility is an innate aspect of human nature. He gives the example of opinions widely held in one age only to be discounted in the next.
...every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd;and it is as certain that many opinions now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many once general are rejected by the present.
Ibid., p 83.
Mill states that to suppress another's opinion is to assume ones own infallibility; humans are incapable of absolute certainty, thus he deducts that no human has the authority to suppress the opinion of another.
To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.
Ibid., p 82.
Mill explains that our opinions are formed from experience and that had our experiences been different we would have developed different opinions.
...it never troubles him that... the same causes which make him a churchman in London would have made him a Buddhist or Confucian in Peking.
Ibid., p 83
I am the chief cartographer of the Ordnance survey, somewhere along the way of my heady rise to power I have become a fervent disbeliever in the town of Bracknell, Berkshire. Tomorrow I plan to erase any trace of the town from the latest print run of maps, no matter the objections of the fifty thousand or so people who claim to live there. After all, I am the chief cartographer! how can I possibly be wrong? This should put the debate to bed once and for all... mwahahahahaha (evil cackle).
Mill would argue that by attempting to suppress discussion of the subject; omitting Bracknell from the maps, I am assuming infallibility. He would say that I could never be absolutely certain of the towns non existence, and furthermore that despite my great experience and the eminence of my office, it would be beyond even my authority to erase the town from the maps, as doing so would prevent others from making up their own minds on the matter.
While playing devils advocate to his own argument Mill gives geometry as an example of a uniquely one sided subject which need not be opposed to be understood.
...on a subject like mathematics where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections.
Ibid., p 89.
Mill may have been unaware of seperate theories published by Janos Bolyai and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky around 1840, which challenged the existing dogmas of mathematics and arrived at a non-euclidian understanding of geometry. This example of a new light being shone on a subject which had been held as an incontrovertible truth, clearly even by Mill himself, would have given a timely demonstration of his infallibilty argument for freedom of speech.
Mill believed that freedom of speech could provide a way for “all-important truths” (Ibid., p 90.) to remain relevant and vital.
...If it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly disscussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.
Ibid., p 88.
What shape is the earth?
The earth is spherical.
How do you know that?
Because my teacher told me.
In this example the second speakers belief in a round earth, is an example of truth by authority. They are simply parroting somebody elses opinion and are unaware of any opposing arguments nor reasons to refute them. Even though their answer is true they have not reached it in a rational way, thus Mill would say that this belief is dead dogma. He believed that the process by which an opinion is arrived at to be equally as important as its inherent truth. Mill held that full comprehension of your own opinions comes not only from understanding the reasons for them, but also considering the reasons put against them and understanding why those reasons are false.
Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know; they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them... and consequently they do not... know the doctrine which they themselves profess.
Ibid., p 90.
Mill stated that if an opinion is not reached through a logical process of considering and eliminating arguments, then it is held as a prejudice.
“the received opinion… unless vigorously and earnestly contested, it will ...be held in the manner of a prejudice with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
Ibid., p 79.
Mill believed that the best method to arrive at a full understanding is through a process of passionate and informed debate, hearing arguments from “persons who actually believe them, who defend them in earnest and do their very utmost for them”(Ibid., p 90). Mill recommends playing devils advocate if “opponents of all important truths do not exist”(Ibid., p 90). and praises critical thinking as a tool for sounding out and developing arguments.
…negative logic- that which points out weaknesses in theory or errors in practice... as a means to attaining positive knowledge or conviction worthy the name it cannot be valued too highly.
Ibid., p 93.
Mill goes on to argue that though an opinion may be largely false it may also contain elements of truth, and for this reason should not be suppressed.
...though the silenced opinion may be an error, it may and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth.
Ibid., p 79.
Mill cites the arguments of Rousseau, which in the eighteenth century landed like “bombshells in the midst” of the widely held admiring view of modernity. Mill claims that though Rousseau's controversial doctrines were “farther from the truth,” they nevertheless forced popular opinion to “recombine in a better form with more ingredients.”
Ibid., p 97.
Mill believed that living beliefs affect the action of the person who holds them, and that a person holding a belief unchallenged will be “deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good...”( Ibid., p 79).
Here Mill is explaining that debate forces us to live up to our opinions; either to act in accordance with them or to change them. He uses the example of some Christians, who profess their beliefs but do not live by them to show the hypocrisy of this position.
b) is Mill's case successful?
Mill anticipates the main objection to his fallibility argument; that the possibility of error; realising ones own fallibility, is not reason enough to prevent suppression of dangerous opinions.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life.
Ibid., p 84.
If an authority can be reasonably certain then it must act to the best of its judgement, inaction would be cowardly, and a neglection of duty.
...when they are sure, it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to shrink from acting on their opinions.
Ibid., p 84.
Mill refutes this position by stating that it is only through debate that reasonable certainty about an opinion can be formed. If after allowing opposing arguments to be expressed in an open debate, our own argument still stands then we may be reasonably certain it is right.
Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.
Ibid., p 85.
Mill explains that humans are able to correct their opinions through discussion, an individual acting on what they alone observe has a wider possibility of reaching a false opinion, and acting in error. Whereas the process of discussion and argument is a more rational way of reaching sound judgements.
He is capable of rectifying his mistakes through discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument... Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning.
Ibid., p 86.
Mill goes on to state that a person who constructs their opinions in this stable, rational way “being cognizant of all that can at least obviously, be said against him”(Ibid., p 86) may be more certain of their judgement than those who have not, “he has a right to think his judgement better than that of any person, or any multitude who have not”(Ibid., p 86).
But what if an authority accepts its own fallibility and wants to suppress an opinion it has reasonable certainty is false? Could this opinion be suppressed? In this instance Mill would apply the harm principle, if the opinion were likely to cause harm then it could be suppressed. However if the opinion would only cause offence or if the opinion were to be suppressed for the good of the population, rather than preventing actual harm, it could not. When applying the harm principle the context as well as the content of an opinion must be taken into account. Mill illustrates this point with the example of an angry mob outside a corn merchants house, incitement of the mob would cause harm and thus should be suppressed, though the same views circulated through newspaper articles or pamphlets need not be.
Whether or not Mill's infallibility point is successful really comes down to ones view of the role of authority in society. Should the government assume a paternalistic stance to protect us, or should we be allowed to make our own decisions? Mill was firmly against paternalism stating, as a qualifier to his harm principle, “His own good either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant”(Ibid., p 57). Surely a society which seeks to foster an “intellectually active people”(Ibid., p 87) must then allow its subjects the liberty of making up their own minds, thus with Mill's “progressive being”(Ibid., p 62) as an aim, the infallibility argument is successful.
In Mills dead dogma argument he suggests that freedom of expression will prevent arguments becoming stale and lifeless, a possible counter to this point is that it is sometimes the suppression of a belief, causing it to be struggled and fought for, which keeps it alive. Fitzjames Stephen argued that it was assertion of belief “in the face of the wheel, the stake, the gallows”(Ibid., p 94) which kept a dogma alive, and as suppression receded “the subjects discussed lost their interest”(Ibid., p 94).
If opinions can actually be enlivened by suppression then is Mill's dead dogma point false? There is empirical evidence to support both Mill's point and Fitzjames Stephen's, so we can see that Mill's argument is not always true.
Mill's link with action argument can be countered with the point that societies in which established beliefs remain unchallenged or discussed, still produce people who put those beliefs into action. In fact Mill's own example could be turned on its head, as many people from Christian communities put their beliefs into action with voluntary community work.
If beliefs can be held actively and vitally without having been challenged, does this mean Mill's link with action arguments are false? Again there is certainly empirical evidence for both sides of the point, we can see in some instances that unchallenged dogmas can still be vitally held, but also that stagnation and hypocrisy can occur where only one side of an opinion is heard. Mill's view is too simplistic, though his observation that people who hold living beliefs put them into action is correct, his link between challenge and action is not always true.
Though Mill's dead dogma and link with action arguments can be shown not to be true in every instance, they remain good reasons for implementing freedom of expression.
A society would gain more from implementing freedom of speech because of Mill's arguments than not.
A clear theme throughout Mill's argument is the point that debate and discussion are necessary in order to construct opinions in a rational way. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for free and open debate. If we read Mill's arguments as advice to government, then we can see that he is advocating a transparent and rational decision making process.
If Mill's arguments are applied on a macro scale, then the answer to whether or not they are successful lies in the sort of society that we wish to create. If we agree with Mill and want to create a society of “intellectually active people”(Ibid., p 87) then his arguments are good reasons for implementing freedom of speech. Therefore Mill's case for freedom of expression is
successful.
John Stuart Mill was a Utilitarian, believing that all ethical questions should be decided by applying the Principle of Utility. This principle states that the morally correct action in any situation is that which will increase happiness for the greatest number of people.
Actions are right in proportion that they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
From Warburton, N. (2007, 4th edn ), Arguments for Freedom, The Open University p 61.
Mill's use of the word happiness differs from the everyday usage, he includes the intellectual higher pleasures of thought and prioritises them over the lower pleasures of the senses.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know …show more content…
their own side of the question.
Ibid., p 62.
This statement also demonstrates the great value which Mill places on the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Though not stated explicitly, his view that seeking truth is fundamental to“the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”(Ibid., p 62) is central to his defence of freedom of speech. Mill expands on this later explaining that freedom of speech is a vital condition in developing a thinking culture.
...in a general atmosphere of mental slavery… there never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere an intellectually active people.
Ibid., p 87.
Mill believed that allowing a wide range of negative freedoms would increase general happiness.
Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
Ibid., p 63.
Working from this belief Mill goes on to state that the only instance in which an authority can be justified in removing negative freedoms from an individual, is when it is deemed that their actions will harm others.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Ibid., p 57. Consistently underpinning Mill's arguments for the preservation of negative liberties are his Utilitarian views. Mill applies the harm principle both to demonstrate the case for freedom of speech and to highlight instances in which it should be suppressed.
Mill argues that fallibility is an innate aspect of human nature. He gives the example of opinions widely held in one age only to be discounted in the next.
...every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd;and it is as certain that many opinions now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many once general are rejected by the present.
Ibid., p 83.
Mill states that to suppress another's opinion is to assume ones own infallibility; humans are incapable of absolute certainty, thus he deducts that no human has the authority to suppress the opinion of another.
To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.
Ibid., p 82.
Mill explains that our opinions are formed from experience and that had our experiences been different we would have developed different opinions.
...it never troubles him that... the same causes which make him a churchman in London would have made him a Buddhist or Confucian in Peking.
Ibid., p 83
I am the chief cartographer of the Ordnance survey, somewhere along the way of my heady rise to power I have become a fervent disbeliever in the town of Bracknell, Berkshire. Tomorrow I plan to erase any trace of the town from the latest print run of maps, no matter the objections of the fifty thousand or so people who claim to live there. After all, I am the chief cartographer! how can I possibly be wrong? This should put the debate to bed once and for all... mwahahahahaha (evil cackle).
Mill would argue that by attempting to suppress discussion of the subject; omitting Bracknell from the maps, I am assuming infallibility. He would say that I could never be absolutely certain of the towns non existence, and furthermore that despite my great experience and the eminence of my office, it would be beyond even my authority to erase the town from the maps, as doing so would prevent others from making up their own minds on the matter.
While playing devils advocate to his own argument Mill gives geometry as an example of a uniquely one sided subject which need not be opposed to be understood.
...on a subject like mathematics where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question. The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections, and no answers to objections.
Ibid., p 89.
Mill may have been unaware of seperate theories published by Janos Bolyai and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky around 1840, which challenged the existing dogmas of mathematics and arrived at a non-euclidian understanding of geometry. This example of a new light being shone on a subject which had been held as an incontrovertible truth, clearly even by Mill himself, would have given a timely demonstration of his infallibilty argument for freedom of speech.
Mill believed that freedom of speech could provide a way for “all-important truths” (Ibid., p 90.) to remain relevant and vital.
...If it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly disscussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.
Ibid., p 88.
What shape is the earth?
The earth is spherical.
How do you know that?
Because my teacher told me.
In this example the second speakers belief in a round earth, is an example of truth by authority. They are simply parroting somebody elses opinion and are unaware of any opposing arguments nor reasons to refute them. Even though their answer is true they have not reached it in a rational way, thus Mill would say that this belief is dead dogma. He believed that the process by which an opinion is arrived at to be equally as important as its inherent truth. Mill held that full comprehension of your own opinions comes not only from understanding the reasons for them, but also considering the reasons put against them and understanding why those reasons are false.
Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know; they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them... and consequently they do not... know the doctrine which they themselves profess.
Ibid., p 90.
Mill stated that if an opinion is not reached through a logical process of considering and eliminating arguments, then it is held as a prejudice.
“the received opinion… unless vigorously and earnestly contested, it will ...be held in the manner of a prejudice with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
Ibid., p 79.
Mill believed that the best method to arrive at a full understanding is through a process of passionate and informed debate, hearing arguments from “persons who actually believe them, who defend them in earnest and do their very utmost for them”(Ibid., p 90). Mill recommends playing devils advocate if “opponents of all important truths do not exist”(Ibid., p 90). and praises critical thinking as a tool for sounding out and developing arguments.
…negative logic- that which points out weaknesses in theory or errors in practice... as a means to attaining positive knowledge or conviction worthy the name it cannot be valued too highly.
Ibid., p 93.
Mill goes on to argue that though an opinion may be largely false it may also contain elements of truth, and for this reason should not be suppressed.
...though the silenced opinion may be an error, it may and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth.
Ibid., p 79.
Mill cites the arguments of Rousseau, which in the eighteenth century landed like “bombshells in the midst” of the widely held admiring view of modernity. Mill claims that though Rousseau's controversial doctrines were “farther from the truth,” they nevertheless forced popular opinion to “recombine in a better form with more ingredients.”
Ibid., p 97.
Mill believed that living beliefs affect the action of the person who holds them, and that a person holding a belief unchallenged will be “deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct; the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good...”( Ibid., p 79).
Here Mill is explaining that debate forces us to live up to our opinions; either to act in accordance with them or to change them. He uses the example of some Christians, who profess their beliefs but do not live by them to show the hypocrisy of this position.
b) is Mill's case successful?
Mill anticipates the main objection to his fallibility argument; that the possibility of error; realising ones own fallibility, is not reason enough to prevent suppression of dangerous opinions.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life.
Ibid., p 84.
If an authority can be reasonably certain then it must act to the best of its judgement, inaction would be cowardly, and a neglection of duty.
...when they are sure, it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to shrink from acting on their opinions.
Ibid., p 84.
Mill refutes this position by stating that it is only through debate that reasonable certainty about an opinion can be formed. If after allowing opposing arguments to be expressed in an open debate, our own argument still stands then we may be reasonably certain it is right.
Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.
Ibid., p 85.
Mill explains that humans are able to correct their opinions through discussion, an individual acting on what they alone observe has a wider possibility of reaching a false opinion, and acting in error. Whereas the process of discussion and argument is a more rational way of reaching sound judgements.
He is capable of rectifying his mistakes through discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument... Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning.
Ibid., p 86.
Mill goes on to state that a person who constructs their opinions in this stable, rational way “being cognizant of all that can at least obviously, be said against him”(Ibid., p 86) may be more certain of their judgement than those who have not, “he has a right to think his judgement better than that of any person, or any multitude who have not”(Ibid., p 86).
But what if an authority accepts its own fallibility and wants to suppress an opinion it has reasonable certainty is false? Could this opinion be suppressed? In this instance Mill would apply the harm principle, if the opinion were likely to cause harm then it could be suppressed. However if the opinion would only cause offence or if the opinion were to be suppressed for the good of the population, rather than preventing actual harm, it could not. When applying the harm principle the context as well as the content of an opinion must be taken into account. Mill illustrates this point with the example of an angry mob outside a corn merchants house, incitement of the mob would cause harm and thus should be suppressed, though the same views circulated through newspaper articles or pamphlets need not be.
Whether or not Mill's infallibility point is successful really comes down to ones view of the role of authority in society. Should the government assume a paternalistic stance to protect us, or should we be allowed to make our own decisions? Mill was firmly against paternalism stating, as a qualifier to his harm principle, “His own good either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant”(Ibid., p 57). Surely a society which seeks to foster an “intellectually active people”(Ibid., p 87) must then allow its subjects the liberty of making up their own minds, thus with Mill's “progressive being”(Ibid., p 62) as an aim, the infallibility argument is successful.
In Mills dead dogma argument he suggests that freedom of expression will prevent arguments becoming stale and lifeless, a possible counter to this point is that it is sometimes the suppression of a belief, causing it to be struggled and fought for, which keeps it alive. Fitzjames Stephen argued that it was assertion of belief “in the face of the wheel, the stake, the gallows”(Ibid., p 94) which kept a dogma alive, and as suppression receded “the subjects discussed lost their interest”(Ibid., p 94).
If opinions can actually be enlivened by suppression then is Mill's dead dogma point false? There is empirical evidence to support both Mill's point and Fitzjames Stephen's, so we can see that Mill's argument is not always true.
Mill's link with action argument can be countered with the point that societies in which established beliefs remain unchallenged or discussed, still produce people who put those beliefs into action. In fact Mill's own example could be turned on its head, as many people from Christian communities put their beliefs into action with voluntary community work.
If beliefs can be held actively and vitally without having been challenged, does this mean Mill's link with action arguments are false? Again there is certainly empirical evidence for both sides of the point, we can see in some instances that unchallenged dogmas can still be vitally held, but also that stagnation and hypocrisy can occur where only one side of an opinion is heard. Mill's view is too simplistic, though his observation that people who hold living beliefs put them into action is correct, his link between challenge and action is not always true.
Though Mill's dead dogma and link with action arguments can be shown not to be true in every instance, they remain good reasons for implementing freedom of expression.
A society would gain more from implementing freedom of speech because of Mill's arguments than not.
A clear theme throughout Mill's argument is the point that debate and discussion are necessary in order to construct opinions in a rational way. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for free and open debate. If we read Mill's arguments as advice to government, then we can see that he is advocating a transparent and rational decision making process.
If Mill's arguments are applied on a macro scale, then the answer to whether or not they are successful lies in the sort of society that we wish to create. If we agree with Mill and want to create a society of “intellectually active people”(Ibid., p 87) then his arguments are good reasons for implementing freedom of speech. Therefore Mill's case for freedom of expression is
successful.