Some however, attack the argument from a utility point of view; that is, that if the prevailing opinion that silences the truthful minority is assumed to be more useful to society, then it is justified in its suppressive activity. An example can be considered in the First World War, and the Government’s censorship of the press to exaggerate victories and not to reveal the true massacre that was occurring on the front. Squashing such revelations would be regarded as sensible politics, as the assumption was that if the general public had known the truth there would be widespread panic, possibly verging on anarchy. They would argue that the majority of the public at that special time needed protection from the truth in order to function in as close to as normally and efficiently as possible, in order that they could be a strong upright force by which to support the troops overseas and somehow decrease the losses.
There may well be a great deal of sensibility within that choice to withdraw information from the masses as the government did at that time, but at what cost? If young minds growing up at that time are told not to question what is written in the papers, they are growing up in an accepting environment, and they in turn will not question their studies, causing the stifling of intellect and timid characters in daily life. Scarier, however, is the effect had upon those who experienced the war and returned to a society who had a very warped idea of what they had been through. How were these young men supposed to be able to cope and put their ordeal behind them if their families and communities had no comprehension of what they’d been through and were afraid of speaking out about their reactions to their experiences because there were women who had given white flowers to ‘cowardly’ men who had objected to the actions in the first place. It would not be inaccurate to say a generation of men would have suffered great inner turmoil owing to situations such as the one described. In this way, it can be founded that suppression of a truthful opinion can breed fear, intellectual stagnation and miscomprehension. Finally, as implied by Dr. Johnson, the truth always has a way of reappearing down the line, and as seen in the case of the war, a government who lies to its masses betrays its masses, and the resulting distrust is something that is regained with difficulty; hardly a useful state for a good, moral society. In this way I feel that Mill’s arguments for encouraging free expression and discussion of true opinions are founded.
The cases against the second instance of opinion Mill considers; that of when neither prevailing opinion nor the silenced opinion holds the whole truth, but each has an element of it masked by an amount of falsity, are very much the same as for the first instance. That is, there is little difference between silencing a small amount of truth as by silencing a whole truth. The logical path to take is to discuss both opinions so that the fragmented truths can be pieced together in order to progress to the whole truth. In this way, I will move on to discussing the third instance, that of an untrue opinion being suppressed.
To most people, if an example such as paedophilia is considered, outlawing such a view from society in a hope to stamp out the behaviour the view advocates, would seem to be the right way to go about promoting truth and good in society; as this view is one prevailing opinion considers to be false and devoid of rational defence, so there seems little point in allowing any defence of it to take place. Indeed, if the use of public money is considered, most people would put much more priority on it being spent on a supervised safe play area for children to go in their spare time than for the funding of a society which irrationally recognises paedophilic tendencies as an appropriate sexual orientation. Yet Mill argues that it is the very fact that the view is irrational that is should be allowed to be expressed and heard, even if that means it requires funding, because in its juxtaposition with the rational view that it can never be right to have intercourse with children who are unable to consent to the act clarifies the correct view further and means we are better able to understand and make decisions about other, more complex problems, because our intellectual abilities are kept alive.
On balance of arguments I feel it can be seen that Mills views on the freedom of thought and discussion much outweigh the opposition, and on balance of arguments he is founded in his arguments.
