• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was J.S.Mill Right to Claim that Suppressing an Opinion is 'Robbing Mankind'

Extracts from this document...


Was J.S.Mill Right to Claim that Suppressing an Opinion is 'Robbing Mankind' John Stuart Mill asserted that by suppression of any opinion that mankind was being 'robbed'. He based this claim upon several different reasons. The first was that when you suppress an opinion you are assuming that you are infallible which Mill claims is a very dangerous position to hold, Mill says that when an opinion is compelled to silence it may well be correct and so suppression of said opinion denies people of the opportunity to correct their own beliefs. Another reason put forward is that even if the opinion silenced is incorrect almost all opinions contain some portion of truth within them, and the only way to truly progress one's opinion towards overall truth is to take the different sections of truth from other opinions and use them to improve your own. Thus even an incorrect opinion can be highly useful and should not be silenced. Thirdly Mill pointed out that even if the prevailing opinion were completely correct when an opinion goes unchallenged and simply is accepted ...read more.


Nietzsche asserted that instead the search for 'truth' is to find the set of assertions which is most 'life preserving' or 'life enhancing' and that the ultimate external 'truth' of a statement only matters if it is involved through one of these points. If this is in fact the case then both first and second assertions are untenable because they both rely on truth being the overall aim, rather than whatever works best. However Mill would not agree with this assertion as he would argue that through utilitarianism a large part of the ultimate 'use' of an opinion is its truth and so to him even if Nietzsche's claim is the best way of searching for an opinion the truth of said opinion is a vital part within this. There are also more general arguments against Mill's assertion of absolute free speech and revulsion to its denial. Can absolute free speech always be a good idea? There are statistics to show that, for example, there is a noticeable rise in racially motivated attacks when a BNP seat is held in a constituency. ...read more.


However it could be argued that these protestors destabilise the country and could potentially disrupt it enough that it fell into insurgency. From this point of view, extolled by the Chinese government, the act of the suppression of the opinion is for the greater good as it helps to keep the country stable and the citizens safe. Even if this causes them to be unhappy about the state of things it can be asserted that this is better because they are at least protected. In this case they are not being 'robbed' by having their opinion suppressed because it is being supplanted by something deemed to be more important and incompatible with the opinion. In conclusion Mill's argument that suppressing an opinion is robbing mankind appears to be fairly stable however not necessarily exactly as he first put it forwards. For example Nietzsche's view that the best opinion is one that is most beneficial rather than necessarily true, appears to be a better blueprint for the search of opinions than an external 'truth'. However once this change to the semantics of Mill's initial assertion the argument looks to be a solid one. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of ...

    Mill saw that this kind of political tyranny could prevent the development of individualistic behavior. Such tyrannies could work in two ways: through the adoption of laws which operate against idiosyncratic, non conforming or dissenting individuals. Or, through the power or pressure of public opinion, (which is notoriously prone to error, superstition or tradition.)

  2. Plato and Nietzsche on Authority

    Atheism is becoming more and more accepted than before, as many new scientific discoveries render God less and less plausible, and as Nietzsche would put it, less useful as a concept. All this taken into account means that knowledge of the Forms probably wouldn't be useful for an authority (especially

  1. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    In order for you to intend to do something, you must first be aware of the likely effect an action will have so that you can chose which action will have the closest outcome to your intention. Likewise, in order to judge a possible action according to its 'probable consequences'

  2. What is the Truth

    Locke's stand is that we need to accept the form of the chair as it is and not question what the ideal form of the chair is or was or is going to be. This is one of the many problems that can arise out of different times and/or schools of thought.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work