The second of Mill’s arguments regards the possibility that opinions, whilst being false, may contain an element of truth and as such their suppression would lead to that truth being lost to human development. Mill produces the example of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ‘noble savage’. Rousseau wrote on the nobility of a simple life out with society and the corrupting influence of ‘civilisation’. This ran entirely contrary to the belief of the vast majority of that civilised society which held that there was little similarity between the ‘ancients’ and themselves, and that all differences between them was to the benefit of the modern age. Mill explains that Rousseau’s work forced society to re-examine its position and add elements of his work to their ‘world view’. That is not to say that Rousseau was any more right than the established opinion, indeed Mill believed that the established opinion ‘contained more of positive truth, and very much less of error’ (Book 1, p97) than Rousseau. However because Rousseau was not suppressed or censored his thoughts on the benefits of a simple life as opposed to ‘the trammels and hypocrisies of artificial society’ (Ibid.) provided truths previously absent.
Mill’s third argument in support of free speech is what has come to be called the ‘Dead Dogma’ argument. Mill stated that however strongly an opinion is held, unless it is ‘fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed’ (Ibid., p88) it becomes dogma, that is, truth proclaimed from authority rather than a reasoned and argued truth. Mill’s principal aim here is to overcome the notion that because an authority makes an assertion, be it Aristotle or a Papal Bull, it is ipso facto true. Mill held that without analysing the reasons for and objections to a view, that view was a prejudice rather than a philosophically acceptable opinion.
A recent example of this is the case of historian David Irvine. 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. He lists a number of rules of conduct and maxims laid down in both the Old and New Testaments to which Christians nominally subscribed, such as the blessedness of the poor and loving thy neighbour, the obvious inference being that these were uniformly believed and uniformly brought little or no action on the part of the believer. Mill argues that Christians do believe these things but that it is a passive, received belief rather than an active belief that will be implemented. He further argues that this is so entrenched that anyone who suggested implementing these rules in full would gain nothing but the scorn and opprobrium of his peers. If these beliefs were challenged vigorously and regularly the link between belief and action would be more established between the lives and actions of the believers.
Of these four arguments the fourth, the ‘link with action’, I find the weakest. Mill’s argument fails to take account of other contemporary influences which may have contributed to the perceived problem, such as poverty, social exclusion, a secular influence, or the socio-political situation of the mid- to late 19th century with the United Kingdom at the height of its imperial strength. It fact there are any number of outside influences which may have contributed to this perceived lapse into hypocrisy which it is out with the scope of this essay to discuss. It remains, however, that each example of a possible cause of this lapse detracts from the strength of Mill’s argument.
Another weakness is that the argument is based on a single example which is itself based on anecdotal evidence. From a logical point of view it may not be that this hypocrisy was as widespread or pernicious as Mill, a humanist, portrayed it, and if this is the case it again removes much of the strength of Mill’s point. Given that the argument is based on a single example a counter-example would provide a strong response to Mill. Should there be in the world a state in which the expression of heterodox views was forbidden, yet the link with action remains firm, this would provide that strong example. This is, in fact, the case as one can readily think of a number of Islamic states where the government is an aggressively fundamentalist theocracy.
To these three objections there are a number of possible responses. Although the rising hypocrisy may have been caused by other influences, the argument still stands that it may have been caused by a lack of challenge to the orthodoxy and it might be argued that while this may not be the sole cause, it was certainly a factor and as such the argument may need to be refined in order to allow for this. In fact this process itself provides a good example of the ‘Partly True’ argument.
If we accept that the argument is undermined by the existence of a counter-example, a positive example of ‘Link-with-Action’ would shore it up again. 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.
