Stuart Mill Justice

Justice Paper #1 In Chapter 2, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Mill claims that silencing one dissident opinion from mankind is equivalent to silencing the entirety of mankind based on premises which differ dependent on the truthfulness of the opinion in question. Regardless of its validity, Mill affirms that silencing the opinion not only harms the present, but also posterior generations of humanity as it reduces the diversity and freedom of opinions which is crucial for a society that espouses liberty. Mill claims that an individual can only attain a better sense of judgment and pleasure in truth by collating his own opinion with a variety of opinions in which it can be expressed by every character of mind. My thesis is that Mill’s argument for this claim is not sound. I will begin by reconstructing Mill’s argument that opposing opinions should be not be silenced based on the idea that society and consequently, individuals attain better perception of truth in an atmosphere with liberty of contradicting opinions. I will then reject the claim that individuals can only attain an enlightened sense of judgment by collating with other differing opinions as well as the claim …show more content…
However, individuals who agree and identify with this claim overlook individuals who cannot afford to partake in this liberty or is marginalized in this liberty. Often those who express opinions are in positions of power, such as a Congressman or a Senator, or privilege individuals while the historical marginalized such as the poor and the minorities are conveniently exempted. Although Mill admitted himself that his ideals of liberty should not apply to those with backward cultures, excluding these individuals deprives this complete liberty of contradicting and disproving opinion that Mill rests on as the foundation of his