The election of a democratic government, accountable to the popular will of the public, represents the majority who have historically sought to subjugate those who hold differing moral beliefs or viewpoints. This oppression is known as the “tyranny of the majority” (Mill 1859, p. 10) and is not exclusively political in nature. Although each individual may legitimately pursue their own ambitions, society has the means to diminish the right to freedom of self-expression by ostracising an individual for behaviour that differs from the social norm. Mill considers this to be an even more brutal form of tyranny than that which the government may impose upon us, as it is much more difficult to liberate yourself from. Consequently, the rules of conduct
…show more content…
In On Liberty, Mill (1859, p. 60-61) offers four reasons as to why freedom of speech is essential; to deny the opinion of another is to assume that our views are never erroneous; sometimes an opinion may only be somewhat true, therefore free discussion is required to discover the whole truth; although people may express an absolute truth, if it is not discussed then others will lack the comprehension to understand it in its entirety and hold the opinion in contempt; the withholding regular and meaningful conversation results in the essence of a truth being lost upon us, because although people may acknowledge an opinion as being true, they find no way in which to relate it back their individual experiences. Mill refers to several examples of how a lack of open discussion contributes to denial, as well as an inadequate understanding of concepts. Relating this back to the thesis question, if somebody does not possess the self-awareness to understand their reasons for wanting to do something, they probably also lack the foresight to see how it may adversely affect the people around them too, thereby subjecting them to a will that is not their
In On Liberty, Mill (1859, p. 60-61) offers four reasons as to why freedom of speech is essential; to deny the opinion of another is to assume that our views are never erroneous; sometimes an opinion may only be somewhat true, therefore free discussion is required to discover the whole truth; although people may express an absolute truth, if it is not discussed then others will lack the comprehension to understand it in its entirety and hold the opinion in contempt; the withholding regular and meaningful conversation results in the essence of a truth being lost upon us, because although people may acknowledge an opinion as being true, they find no way in which to relate it back their individual experiences. Mill refers to several examples of how a lack of open discussion contributes to denial, as well as an inadequate understanding of concepts. Relating this back to the thesis question, if somebody does not possess the self-awareness to understand their reasons for wanting to do something, they probably also lack the foresight to see how it may adversely affect the people around them too, thereby subjecting them to a will that is not their