His argument for free speech has something in common with the Churchillian defence of democracy: it’s the worst system for ensuring truth and understanding, bar all the others. Mill is not a rosy-eyed optimist about the marketplace of ideas. It involves a partial distortion of Mill’s view. This might be one reason why modern commentators are quick to reject Mill’s argument but I think they are wrong to do so on this surface reading. Of course, it’s a little difficult for those of us standing here today - in the post-truth, post-Trump era - to get fully onboard with this. Or, to adopt the modern idiom, he seems to think that if we allow the ‘marketplace of ideas’ to unfold without interference, the truth will out. On a surface reading, he seems to think that guaranteeing freedom of expression is a truth-and-understanding generating mechanism. Most of Mill’s time and energy is dedicated to the defence of the second premise of this argument. (3) Therefore, we ought to promote freedom of speech (and prevent the silencing or censorship of expression).(1) The truth (and a clear and lively impression thereof) is valuable we ought to allow/enable people to arrive at true beliefs about the world.Implied in this passage is the following general argument for freedom of speech: If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race posterity as well as the existing generation those who dissentįrom the opinion, still more than those who hold it. The basic thrust of the argument is set out in a remarkably succinct form in the following passage: His argument for free speech is one of the best examples of this. We still regularly debate issues around censorship, regulatory interference and the 'Nanny' state in terms that he first set down. For better or worse, modern liberal democracies live in the shadow of Mill’s reasoning. What’s more, many of the issues and arguments raised still feel relevant today. You can’t help but get swept up in Mill’s enthusiasm for liberty, and impatience with censors and oppressors, when you read it. On Liberty crackles with passion and verve. ![]() What is it about Mill’s argument that appeals more than 150 years after it was first published? Well, Mill was undoubtedly a great writer, particularly in his more polemical essays (I could take or leave the Principles of Political Economy to be honest). So enamoured are they by Mill’s argument that they think it is important to make it accessible and attractive to a new generation. One of the most prominent recent examples of this is the publication of a lavish illustrated edition of Chapter 2 of On Liberty by the Heterodox Academy, an organisation dedicated to ensuring ‘viewpoint diversity’ on college campuses. ![]() In recent debates about freedom of expression on college campuses, it is amazing how frequently the opponents of campus speech codes, trigger warnings, no-platforming, de-platforming and other speech regulations reach for Mill’s essay. The most famous defence of free speech in the Western philosophical canon is, undoubtedly, the argument from Chapter 2 of John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. Suffice to say, all quotes in the following text come directly from Mill.) Nevertheless, I hope they explicate the structure of Mill’s argument a bit better than some of the other online summaries. They are my take on the argument, not a definitive interpretation or analysis of Mill. The notes are intended to explain the logic, structure and shortcomings of J.S. ( Note to reader: These are lightly expanded notes for a class I once gave on freedom of speech.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |