Silencing opinion is wrong because it harms mankind. The harm is done whether the opinion silenced is true or false. First, Mill looks at the harm done by silencing an opinion that may well be true (Mill, p.14). Mill says that “to refuse hearing an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty” (Mill, p.15). Here Mill is saying that no one should keep someone from speaking their opinion because they cannot be certain that the person’s opinion is wrong and theirs is correct. They cannot be certain of this because humans are infallible, meaning that humans can be wrong (Mill, p.14). One possible rebuttal to Mill’s argument that silencing an opinion is wrong because
…show more content…
He believes that a commonwealth should protect our natural rights such as life and liberty. Therefore, a common misconception could be that because the liberty of thought and expression is a liberty Locke would support protecting free speech, or opinion.
However, once you begin to look deeper into Locke’s political philosophy you can see that he would not be as supportive as Mill on the issue of free speech. Locke considers the consent of the majority to be equivalent to the individual’s consent (Locke, Sec. 140). If the majority can consent to laws that encroach on your estate, then the majority is also able to consent to laws that encroach on liberty. Since Locke himself lumped the right to life, liberty, and estate all together as basic property rights (Locke, Sec. 6). It could be argued that even if the majority could consent to laws on liberty, it would not be harmful to individual rights since the majority consent would likely be fair because each person that votes also has to follow these laws. However, to this I respond that even though the lawmakers are required to follow these same laws, they often have the power and resources to undermine these laws. Also, just because it may not affect the majority negatively does not mean that it won’t infringe on some people’s
He believes that a commonwealth should protect our natural rights such as life and liberty. Therefore, a common misconception could be that because the liberty of thought and expression is a liberty Locke would support protecting free speech, or opinion.
However, once you begin to look deeper into Locke’s political philosophy you can see that he would not be as supportive as Mill on the issue of free speech. Locke considers the consent of the majority to be equivalent to the individual’s consent (Locke, Sec. 140). If the majority can consent to laws that encroach on your estate, then the majority is also able to consent to laws that encroach on liberty. Since Locke himself lumped the right to life, liberty, and estate all together as basic property rights (Locke, Sec. 6). It could be argued that even if the majority could consent to laws on liberty, it would not be harmful to individual rights since the majority consent would likely be fair because each person that votes also has to follow these laws. However, to this I respond that even though the lawmakers are required to follow these same laws, they often have the power and resources to undermine these laws. Also, just because it may not affect the majority negatively does not mean that it won’t infringe on some people’s