John Stuart Mill's Argument

John Stuart Mill, a philosopher during the mid-1800’s, is known as one of the most important western political philosophers in the past three hundred years. Many of his arguments on freedom can be seen intertwined with the current way we run societies around the world today. Being a self proclaimed Utilitarian, Mill focuses his arguments on making the collective reside with the most utility possible, with utility being defined by happiness. To achieve maximum utility, Mill presents three larger arguments,the harm principle, experiments of living, and freedom of speech. Before one can begin to agree or criticize Mill's arguments they must first delve into the core of Mill’s teachings, the harm principle. The harm principle is what Mill …show more content…
The philosophy puts forth three core arguments that must be recognized before an opinion is accepted or rejected. The harm principle is the first of these three arguments. Mill expands the definition of the harm principle into something that reaches beyond physical harm. In this context Mill states that if what is being said, written, or presented would insight violence, such as a speech encouraging racial discrimination, then it no longer is defended by the harm principle. The second argument that Mill states should be considered is the infallibility argument. In this mill claims that if an individual suppresses a view on a subject they consider themselves to be infallible. Mill argues that humans are fallible creatures by nature and shows that history has a plethora of examples where this argument should have been considered. One of the most prominent examples is the once widely held belief that the sun revolved around the earth. When original counter arguments were brought to the public, they were quickly shot down and suppressed, and it wasn't until sufficient evidence was presented did people consider that they were wrong. By removing the opportunity to provide counter arguments, the errors and mistakes of the original way of thinking were never shown. Accepting and rebutting counterarguments increases the knowledge of both parties and though it doesn't make humanity infallible, it makes ideas and opinions more reliable. The third argument Mill presents is the argument of the dead dogma. Mill states that if an idea or opinion is held as a truth and not frequently and fearlessly discussed it will cease to be what is considered a living truth and instead become a dead dogma. When in the state of a dead dogma and left unquestioned, then an idea loses the ability to stir those who believe. An idea can