Andy Wilson

April 26, 2005

Response paper

In the first two chapters of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill lays down the basic

structure of his argument and then discusses the importance of the liberty of opinion.

Chapter one of On Liberty provides a brief overview of the meaning of liberty. He also

introduces his basic argument in favor of respecting liberty, to the degree that it does not

harm anyone else. In chapter two, Mill details why liberty of opinion is so important.

Chapter two raises some very interesting questions. First of all, Mill assumes that there is

the existence of truth; but if no one could be right or wrong, would this require tolerance

and respect of difference, or could whoever has the most followers try to defeat the

others? Secondly, can Mill be convincing to people whose beliefs demand intolerance of

those who disagree with them? Since social benefit is the basis for his justification of

liberty, it would seem that a person who believes in intolerance could simply say that any

benefits of free opinion are outweighed by allowing something evil to be expressed.

In Chapter two Mill addresses the issue of whether people should be allowed to

coerce or limit anyone else’s expression of opinion. Mill believes that opinions are

important and should be tolerated because they are possibly right and that if they are not

questioned and debated they become “dead dogma” as Mill states. His first position on

the support of opinions raises an interesting question. Mill is obviously not a relativist

because he believes that any idea might be true and should be dismissed. Therefore he

believes in the existence of moral truths. But what if moral truths do not exist? If no one
was right or wrong, would this require people to respect the differences of others? Would

tolerance still exist or would the strongest opinion defeat all of the others? This is an

important point that is raised because without Mill’s support of the existence of moral

truths, his ideas would still be equally credible; especially his first position for the

defense of opinion.

If no one could be right or wrong there would be no reason to assume that they

could be right but there would also not be any reason to assume they were wrong. If a

person is not convinced that their standpoint is right or that another standpoint is wrong,

there would be no way for conflict to exist between them because their main point of

strength (faith in ones own ideas) would be out the window. In order for any opinion to

thrive there needs to be a conviction among those who support that the opinion is true.

Without a strong central belief system there is no way for any people to attack another

belief system or even give a reasonably strong support of their own. This would lead to

an amount of respect and toleration among groups.

Mill’s second position would also be credible. By assuming that no idea is right

or wrong there is not the risk of creating “dead dogma.” Since no one truly believes they

are right or wrong there is a continual questioning of the beliefs of a group. And since

those ideas are being questioned there is the creation of new ideas through the synthesis

of old and new ideas. The creation of new ideas through questioning keeps any opinion

from becoming stagnant. Thus, even if no idea could be true or false the idea of

respecting and tolerating ideas would still be valuable because there would still be the

need for change.

 The other question that is raised is: can Mill be convincing to people whose

beliefs demand intolerance of those who disagree with them? Can groups, such as radical

Christian and Islamic sects and ultra-racist factions like the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan

Nation, be persuaded to believe that tolerating and respecting the opinions of other

groups is actually a benefit to society. They would be more likely to believe that, despite

the disadvantages of eliminating such groups, it would be better to simply get ride of

them because they are an evil that must be destroyed. There is little hope that Mill could

be appealing to intolerant people and convince them that they should accept his way of

thinking. But according to Mill’s belief that dissent is needed in order to truly understand

ones own opinion, a group that does not ever question its own views even from outside

sources is doomed to stagnation and decay. Throughout history when an idea or

institution becomes stagnant it is changed by a tremendous outburst of new ideas. An

example would be the Reformation when Martin Luther questioned over a thousand years

worth or Catholic dogma that had become corrupted. Martin Luther’s displeasure with

the Catholic Church and desire to change it stemmed from unbending and outdated

dogma. It is thus possible that even though Mill would not be appealing to an intolerant

group his theory that unquestioning groups eventually change because of stagnation and

corruption is true.

John Stuart Mill’s idea concerning toleration and respect of other opinions is very

powerful and influential. Thinking about how no one could be right or wrong, brings up

how persuasive Mill can be to people who do not share all of his assumptions. By

showing how Mill’s ideas can function, even if people do not share his assumptions,

makes his all the more viable. This is also true of showing how even though groups that
are intolerant do not immediately accept Mill’s idea, they eventually succumb to his idea

of “dead dogma.” These two questions help to support and give credibility to the ideas

that are proposed in On Liberty.