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

What are Mill’s four main arguments in defence of freedom of speech?

Extracts from this document...


What are Mill's four main arguments in defence of freedom of speech? Which, in your opinion, is the weakest argument? Explain what objections might be raised to this argument, and consider what responses (if any) might be raised to these objections on behalf of Mill. In defending freedom of speech and ideas from suppression and censorship, subject to the Harm Principle, Mill laid down four arguments to show that such suppression was contrary to the good of 'the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation', both to those who are suppressed and more acutely the suppresser. The arguments are as follows; firstly the idea might be true. To assume otherwise is to assume infallibility. Secondly, though the idea might be wrong, it may contain some truth missing from the orthodox view and thus by being openly discussed and refuted the true element may be isolated and incorporated into the larger truth. Thirdly, even if the established truth is the whole truth, it must be criticised and challenged or it will become a received opinion, held without rational argument. Finally, Mill argues, if orthodox opinion goes unchallenged it stands in danger of losing its power and becoming something professed, but not deeply believed. ...read more.


Irvine has written a number of books and articles attempting to recast Adolph Hitler as a great war leader and denying the systematic attempted extermination of the Jewish race. Mill would allow this under the Harm Principle as long as there was no accompanying incitement to violence and because no matter how firmly and with what evidence an opinion is held, challenges must be allowed. Many authors and historians have published work attempting to discredit Irvine's methodology and conclusions and indeed Irvine sued and threatened to sue the authors and publishers for libel. Thus in court Irvine's arguments and those of his opponents were publicly and dispassionately analysed and Irvine was found to be wanting in all cases. In this way, as Mill showed, the truth, in this case the history of the Holocaust was reaffirmed and kept alive rather than becoming a dry historical fact. Mill's fourth argument is closely linked to the above 'Dead Dogma' argument. He holds that unless a belief is challenged and examined it ends up losing its power to motivate its believers. Mill's example is the commandments and moral lessons of the Bible to which lip-service was paid, in his opinion, in Victorian England. ...read more.


If we look to either Christianity in Communist Russia or Falon Gong in modern China we can see clearly that, given the correct circumstances, religious belief can thrive under conditions of oppression. As to the problem of anecdotal evidence, there is not much answer other than to point to the wide range of other sources for similar evidence. One might take the work of Dickens as a social commentator of his time, or the necessity for child labour legislation to show that Mill was not the only person to recognise and comment on the problems and their causes of his time. In response to the objections as a whole it might be argued that rather than making a specific point about Victorian Christianity Mill was making a general point and using the opportunity to level a damaging accusation at a group he felt strongly about even though in dong so he weakened his own argument. Therefore, in my opinion, the 'link with action' argument is the weakest of the four. It can be objected to on the grounds of being simplistic and not allowing for other influences, that it is based on a single example and that that example is based on anecdotal evidence. These can be responded to by allowing for those other influences, providing further examples and pointing out a range of other sources of similar anecdotal evidence. 1 of 7 ...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. Plato and Nietzsche on Authority

    and Nietzsche's subjectivism would agree. Human nature would be indulged in an ideal world, if happiness was the ultimate value, and this calls for freedom to be a central concept of any Authority. Freedom to vote, to those in the UK, seems to be a basic human right with few restrictions.

  2. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    By introducing the harm principle Mill attempts to ensure that the aggregate happiness is maintained by defining the point at which an action goes into negative value according to its "probable consequences", and so provides a clear cut of line in an otherwise sliding scale of degrees of value.

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

    can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." -So Mill is referring to not just any harm, but specifically physical harm.

  2. Compare, contrast and evaluate Plato and Mill on the relationship between individual and society

    Mill encouraged the equal rights for women on the basis of utility. He argued that we could not criticise women for being less skilled than men if we did not give them equal opportunity to try. He also said that society could not be at its best when half the population could contribute nothing to society outside of the home.

  1. Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion Discuss

    He chooses to stay in the room, believing he has chosen freely. In reality, he has no option. However, his ignorance of this gives him an illusion of freedom. Paul- Henri Thiry also agreed with this view, a "man who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe."

  2. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    We can think about something without displaying that fact by our bodily behaviour. However what does the fact that we have privileged access to many of our thoughts actually tell us. It certainly does not mean that only I can know what I am thinking as it is entirely possible

  1. 'Human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either part ...

    others, then it is perfectly permittable for others to 'pursue hostile courses'6 against him. The second assumption consists of 'when summing happiness, the distinction between persons is irrelevant'7. Crisp is taking impartiality, as Mill understood it, thus it implies maximisation. Yet, Mill does not clarify how happiness can be summed.

  2. We do not possess any genuine freedom to act ethically Discuss

    old and lived in a deprived area of Newcastle with her single mother. Mary at the age of 10 murdered two children, the two and three year old sons of a neighbour. Referring back to what was afore mentioned about the age in which a child knows the difference between

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