15 ms·
Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion (1869)
- andai 9y ago“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
- sonabinu 9y agoThis one line was so powerful when I read this piece in college, I had to read it all!!!!
- austincheney 9y agoThis is the line I remember when people try to force their supreme righteousness upon somebody. Sometimes people will use the word obvious as their primary defense, but that word is easily exchangeable with oblivious.
- KirinDave 9y agoIs the intent of this comment to suggest that people are being silenced for contentious opinions and that is bad? Or that it is a slippery slope to that condition?
- conanbatt 9y agoThat numbers is not a justification for silencing dissent.
- twobyfour 9y agoThis is the key point. UNPOPULARITY isn't a good reason for an opinion to be silenced. That' a very different stance from saying that HARM isn't a good reason for an opinion to be silenced.
- KirinDave 9y agoWell, I submit that by this very statement: the natural social effects we define as "unpopular" cannot then be used to suggest "silencing". As many people have pointed out, it's actually vanishingly rare for people to get punished for unpopular opinions. In general you only get there if you are sincerely promoting genocide (e.g., Spencer), suggesting that not all humans are fit for freedom. (e.g., Moldbug), or that existing cohorts of people who very clearly were offered fair standards of grading are inferior (as Damore did even though he can't seem to come to terms with the real implications of what he wrote). And these are "opinions" many people have and never get any sort of actual punishment or damage to themselves so long as they don't bring it into professional or policy environments where we have agreed it leads to discriminatory practices. It's interesting how the rhetoric about "liberal feels" is so strong online when it's only said "feels" that make most people feel oppressed anyways.
- lostmsu 9y agoI profoundly disagree. Some statements are provably false.
- steve_g 9y agoMill responds that the suppression of false ideas is wrong, nevertheless: "If the opinion is right, they [the human race] 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."
- lostmsu 9y agoHere's the thing: not everyone will accept formal proof. Sooner or later they will have to be silenced.
- printf_kek0 9y agoHe who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. I think this is highly relevant considering the times we live in (identity politics, nationalism, feminism, polarization of opinions and beliefs).
- emacsgifs 9y agoPlease edit your comment to correctly show as a quote and not as plaintext/monospaced
- Alex3917 9y agoIs there any good argument against this JSM piece? I've heard folks say that he was just one philosopher and other philosophers thought differently, but I've yet to hear an argument against this that I've found compelling.
- dvanduzer 9y agoThis is a complex philosophical essay, not a specific legal or political argument. What exactly would one be "for" or "against" in your mind? I enjoyed this segment: Do the fruits of conquest perish by the very completeness of the victory? I affirm no such thing. As mankind improve, the number of doctrines which are no longer 32 disputed or doubted will be constantly on the increase: and the well-being of mankind may almost be measured by the number and gravity of the truths which have reached the point of being uncontested.
- Alex3917 9y agoI mean given that the concept of No Platforming people has become popular among leftist activists, presumably they have some reason for rejecting the ideas in the essay.
- dvanduzer 9y agoI don't understand "No Platforming" as a verb here... I infer you mean something like calling for the removal of Nazis from Twitter? I think there are some authoritarian leftist activists, but I doubt it's a particularly representative sample of the overall category you're thinking of when you mention leftist activists. I think you're just drawing the wrong conclusions from whatever you've read of Mill. Section 44 from the essay: Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. This also comes after Mill has walked a fine line in section 38 describing how Christian morality must be both questioned, and augmented as some kind of intersectional morality along with other faiths. Whatever reading of Mill you have that makes you think leftists would disagree with it...
- solidsnack9000 9y agoThere is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. This is a pretty solid argument for freedom of speech in the sense in which it is generally protected: as something that contributes to public dialogue in politics, the sciences and the arts. Many things seem to be this but aren’t. Hate speech is not an opinion in this sense: it is not something presented as an argument or topic for discussion. You are either with the haters, or you are against them. Whether something is political speech or not depends very much on how it is offered to the public. The same idea — memory safety is a recent, innocuous example from this forum — can be a rallying cry for some and a point of discussion for others.
- printf_kek0 9y ago> Hate speech is not an opinion in this sense: it is not something presented as an argument or topic for discussion. According to J.S. Mill, free speech should only be constrained to the extent that it violates what he calls the harm principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He makes a distinction between causing harm and causing offense. Revulsion, disgust, psychologically upsetting speech, discriminatory speech, insults and so forth fall under the latter category. Free speech which merely causes offense should not be prohibited according to Mill however controversial or contrary to social norms such speech is. But how strong the definition of the "harm principle" should be is subject to debate. Contrast for instance, screaming "Fire!!" in a theater - which might cause injury and death from a crowd stampede - with "All <insert_ethnic_group> are inherently inferior to <insert_other_ethnic_group>". The difference between causing harm and offense is that harm is universally injurious, whereas as what causes offense is only experienced subjectively. Although I find blatant hate speech detestable, there is a worrying trend where a majority of people consider hate speech to mean "anything that we disagree with". In our times, it is difficult to speak frankly or be a contrarian without being demonized. And this is precisely what J.S. Mill calls "tyranny of the majority" and consequentially what leads to loss of individuality in society.
- acabal 9y agoShameless plug: anyone interested in reading On Liberty on their ereader should check out our free edition at Standard Ebooks: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-liberty https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-libert... It's an excellent read, and is the foundation of a lot of quotes on philosophy of government that Americans will be familiar with, but perhaps unsure of the source. A really foundational book.
- scoggs 9y agoThanks, I came to the comments looking for something like this. Much appreciated.
- dvanduzer 9y agoThe most interesting historical tidbit I learned from reading this essay, is that when you are playing devil's advocate, you are implying the person you are arguing with has been nominated for sainthood.
- bmh_ca 9y agoThe devils advocate is literally a Catholic position occupied by a person arguing against conferring sainthood. The interesting bit is that historically the strength of sainthood has been tied to the conviction of the advocate for the devil, not the quality of the advocate for the saint.
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoInteresting. TIL
- yesenadam 9y ago(1859) - On Liberty (of which this is a chapter) was published 1859, not 1869.
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoWhich, if any readers not from the US are wondering makes a very big difference because of the events of those 10yr.
- announcerman 9y agoDiversity of thought will always trump any other type of diversity.
- senatorobama 9y agoA privileged white male.