Whatever people believe, on subjects on which it is of the first importance to believe rightly, they ought to be able to defend against at least the common objections. But, someone may say, “… Persons who learn geometry do not simply commit the theorems to memory, but understand and learn likewise the demonstrations; and it would be absurd to say that they remain ignorant of the grounds of geometrical truths, because they never hear anyone deny, and attempt to disprove them.” Undoubtedly: and such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question… But on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons (Mill).
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. The Project Gutenberg, 2011, p. 66.
The second chapter of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty provides his famous defense for freedom of speech. The excerpt above demonstrates his reasoning on why free exchange of ideas (and consequently the exchange of objections) is indispensable to human acquisition and retention of answers, or truths.
Mill starts his argument in the excerpt by pointing out the duty of individuals with beliefs: “Whatever people believe, on subjects on which it is of the first importance to believe rightly, they ought to be able to defend against at least the common objections” (Mill). According to Mill, people need to be equipped with the ability to defend their beliefs. Specifically, Mill expects them to understand the grounds for their beliefs, to elaborate on them with logic, to consider possible objections and their underlying reasons, and finally, to counter opposing views through dissecting and pinpointing their logical flaws. Mill believes that people unwilling to subject their beliefs to challenges are dogmatic and ignorant of the beliefs they cling to, since they are capable of nothing else but blind belief. This way, belief is reduced to prejudice.
Mill goes on to clarify his statement by anticipating a possible objection to his argument and responding to it. He inserts a hypothetical dissenter who proposes a case against him, stating that geometry scholars “do not simply commit the theorems to memory, but understand and learn…the grounds of geometrical truths.” However, the dissenter argues that, by Mill’s standards, “geometry scholars” would be categorized as “ignorant of the grounds of geometrical truths” simply because “they never hear anyone deny, and attempt to disprove them”; in other words, they seldom defend the answer to any geometric question out of a lack of need to do so (Mill). That is, the dissenter might accuse Mill of mis-categorizing some believers as ignorant, like geometry scholars who do understand the grounds for their beliefs yet rarely encounter any opposition.
In response, Mill identifies a key characteristic of fields like geometry—they all have one accepted answer. The consensus about one unique answer in the discussion about geometry and comparable subjects makes it impossible for someone to argue against it reasonably—since alternatives are unlikely when only one answer may exist. For instance, it is overwhelmingly agreed that one plus one equals two, and people could not refute it. Mill concedes that “such teaching suffices on a subject like mathematics, where there is nothing at all to be said on the wrong side of the question” (Mill). However, Mill rebuts that “[b]ut on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons” (Mill). That is, for subjects where context and subjectivity contribute to the discussion’s outcome and where an absolute answer is impossible, debates where two opposing yet balancing sides grapple to deliver the truth are necessary (Mill). In the discussion process, advocates of beliefs should not simply state their beliefs but must be able to debate against an imagined or actual dissenter. In the process, they would present the further logic in their belief, and demonstrate how to learn from and refute the opposition. In return, it furthers the advocate’s own knowledge of their belief, forming a virtuous cycle. So far, Mill has demonstrated the very process of believing he advocates by inserting this naysayer who challenges his views.
The idea Mill tries to convey in this excerpt is that people who hold any debatable beliefs must do more than just believing. They must explore the rationale behind their beliefs and learn the grounds of their opposition while trying to overturn it. Unless they are prepared to subject their beliefs to rigorous examination, their beliefs would only degrade into dogma, even if they are true. Mill’s idea in On Liberty sought to challenge the shackles of his time. Published in 1859, the celebrated Victorian Age of England, On Liberty expressed Mill’s strong disgust at the set of social values and rules characterizing that era. Mill intended to counter the society’s oppression of nonconformity and promote the value of individuality. In this particular excerpt, Mill encourages different voices to resist conformity. He believes that it doesn’t matter whether the voices are ultimately right or wrong. Their mere presence helps promote the exploration of answers. If the opposition to a belief is right, then this process is a way to correct misconceptions or false beliefs; if the opposition is wrong, the process acts to further reinforce the well-founded perspectives as the opposition is refuted. Therefore, “freedom of speech” is the principle to secure these payoffs, since this ideology requires society to promote and defend free expression and exchange of any idea by anyone, which ideally is the ultimate means to discover answers, or truths.
Since digital media’s emergence, spread of information has been greatly promoted. The subsequent products, such as echo chambers and the wide spread of fake news, has been inflicting great repercussions upon society ever since. The massive intake of information and a lack of willingness and time to validate them make the audience more vulnerable to falsity and manipulation than ever. Even in democracies, freedom of speech is seriously challenged as voices for filtering expression gain more ground. Meanwhile, there are concerns that this well-intentioned censorship would ultimately degrade into a weapon of dictatorship. Undoubtedly, it is a critical point where Mill’s ideas from this excerpt of On Liberty should be reexamined and discussed to help us find a way to weather through this information confusion and insecurity.
