Mill on Liberty Essay examples -- essays research papers

In Chapter 2, loaf turns to the issue of whether hoi polloi, either through their government or on their own, should be allowed to coerce or limit any matchless elses expression of judgment. Mill emphatically says that such kneadions are illegitimate. Even if unless oneness more or lessbody held a particular survey, mankind would not be justified in silencing him. Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first parentage is that the suppressed opinion may be accredited. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they gull no authority to decide an issue for all good deal, and to keep others from orgasm up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why casualness of opinion is so often in danger is that in pr actice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the being they come in contact with. Mill contends that such confidence is not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas. After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at viable animadversions of his reasoning and responds to them. First, in that respect is the criticism that even though people may be wrong, they simmer down have a duty to act on their "conscientious conviction." When people are current that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe bequeath hurt mankind. To this, Mill replies that the only way that a person quite a little be confident that he is right is if there is complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs. Humans have the capacity to correct their mistakes, merely only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain disperse to criticism. Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions there must be a standing invitation to try on to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are primal to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to antagonize these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not sincerely yours understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes. Mill presents one possible criticism of this view. He writes that it could be asked whether it is essential for "true knowledge" for some people to hold erroneous opinions. Mill replies that having an increasing number of oppose opinions is both "inevitable and indispensable" in the process of human improvement. However, this does not mean that the loss of debate is not a drawback, and he encourages teachers to try to compensate for the loss of dissent. Mill then turns to a fourth argument for freedom of opinion. He writes that in the case of conflicting doctrines, perhaps the about common case is that instead of one being true and one false, the truth is somewhere between them. Progress usually only substitutes one partial truth for another, the newer truth more suited to the needs of the times. take issue or heretical opinions often reflect the partial truths not accept in popular opinion, and are valuable for bringing attention to a "fragment of wisdom." This fact can