In an effort to strengthen his argument, Mill offers up several possible counter-arguments. He proceeds to refute those arguments, showing that free speech is a necessary part of society. One such counter-argument is that although humans are infallible, and do make mistakes, they must rely upon their opinions so that they have something to guide them to action. This counter argument also reasons that if men do not act on their opinions, because they may at times be wrong, they would have nothing to act upon, and thus nothing would get done. In response to this argument Mill writes, ‘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’ (Mill, 23). Mill counters the stated argument by explaining that since humans must act upon opinions, which may be false, it is even more important that these opinions be debated in a free and open environment. In brilliant fashion, Mill is able to not only refute an argument contrary to his views, but also further his own argument in doing so. In short, Mill strengthens the case for freedom of thought and expression by arguing that this openness will allow for better decision making on the part of society.
Mill furthers his argument on the need for freedom of speech and expression by examining various historical cases of society suppressing free speech and assuming it is infallible. He attacks the notion that speech should be censored when it is dangerous or detrimental to society as a whole. Namely, he examines the case of Socrates and Jesus Christ. Mill explains that in both of these cases it was believed that the opinions expressed by these great men were dangerous and detrimental to society. Mill explains that people’s thoughts and opinions are highly reliant upon the society that they live in. With regard to the execution of Jesus Christ he writes, ‘as the generality of respectable and pious men now are in the religious and moral sentiments they profess; and most of those who now shudder at his conduct, if they had lived in his time, and been born Jews, would have acted precisely as he did’ (Mill, 28). Mill explains that although most men are appalled at the way Jesus was treated, they most likely would have favored his execution, as most did at the time. Here, Mill makes a strong argument as to why humans should not assume infallibility, even if public opinion is on their side. Furthermore, Mill argues that when we stifle free expression to the extent that we make a martyr of someone, it is doing a terrible disservice to the world. He remarks on how terrible an action it is to kill those that reveal to the world a new truth. This in turn stifles the expression of those that would like to reveal truth, but feel it necessary to censor themselves for fear of society. In short, Mill again makes a strong case for freedom of thought and expression, regardless of how extreme the opinion may seem to be at the time.
Along with arguing that freedom of thought and expression, John Stuart Mill makes a strong case for the importance of diversity of opinions. Mill wrote that truth depends on a balance of conflicts and that a person must know both sides of an argument in order to have an opinion on the subject. Moreover, Mill wrote that it was important to know both sides of an issue because, more times than not, the truth lies in both sides of the argument. After explaining that there are times when a popular opinion is either right or wrong, Mill wrote, “But there is a commoner case than either of these; when the conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them; and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth, of which the received doctrine embodies only a part. Popular opinions, on subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth’ (Mill, 47). Mill explains that even though popular opinions might be true, they rarely are completely true and are often lacking aspects of the truth that are contained in the conflicting opinion. Mill believed that heretical opinions were often these competing opinions that contained part of the truth. Basically, Mill asserts that a diversity of opinions is needed if society is to move closer to the whole truth.
In On Liberty, Mill also writes that although new parts of truth come to be understood and accepted, there is usually only a partial understanding of the truth. He writes, ‘Even progress, which ought to be superadd, for the most part only substitutes, one partial and incomplete truth for another; improvement consisting chiefly in this, that the new fragment of truth is more wanted, more adapted to the needs of the time, than that which it displaces’ (Mill, 47). Here Mill asserts that although truths are replaces, humans, often, do not get any closer to the truth. However, he later argues that this is a positive step because the new truths are better in that they are more noticeable, due their being fresh in people’s minds. Again, Mill argues that a diversity of interests is positive and makes a compelling argument as to why this is so.
Although Mill makes a compelling and clear case as to why it is important to have a diversity of opinions and to have them heard, there are problems in practicality. Mill asserts that everyone should hear both sides of an argument in order to truly understand an issue and make a decision on it. He goes further and says that to be educated we should look at both sides of an opinion and praise those that offer contrary opinions. While this is certainly a good principle in theory, it runs into problems in real life applications. It is nothing short of impossible for a person to thoroughly examine both sides of every issue and avoid relying on the opinions of people they know or of the larger community in general. Sadly, due to time constraints and a multiplicity of issues in life, humans often have no choice but to rely on the opinions of the world around them or like-minded people whose opinions they trust. In short, one problem with Mill’s writing on a diversity of interests is that he almost seems to infer that every human being must act as a philosopher.
Yet another problem in On Liberty deals with Mill’s belief that there is never reason to suppress free speech. Mill argues that because free speech can do nothing but encourage the truth, it should never be silenced. However, Mill fails to thoroughly address the issue of speech that is simply aimed at hurting others or generally causing trouble. Although Mill addresses this towards the end of his chapter on free speech, he comes to the conclusion that a distinction on what speech can be allowed, cannot be made because it will be used to protect popular opinion. He also asserts that most unpopular opinions are originally seen as hateful or generally out of line. However, his failure to determine what type of speech should not be allowed is important because it would allow hateful speech to be spewed forth over and over again, regardless of whether it contains any truth or has been previously shown to have no merit. In short, although setting parameters for freedom of speech is a daunting task, Mill’s solution of having no guidelines is rather impractical.
In conclusion, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty makes a well thought out argument for unlimited freedom of thought and expression. Instead of appealing to emotion, Mill makes a rational and logical argument that responds to a variety of counter arguments. Mill does not simply argue that freedom of thought and expression should be allowed on the basis of morals, instead he makes a case built on the belief that these things are in the best interest of society and its pursuit of truth.
