Why Open Debate is Essential for Truth

I believe that all people, whether they are in the majority or the minority, are entitled to their own opinions. J. S. Mill was an English philosopher, political economist, and civil servant. One of the most influential thinkers in the development of classical liberalism, he contributed extensively to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed “the most prominent English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century”, he considered freedom to explain the freedom of the citizen in contrast to unrestricted state and social power.

First, there is the criticism that, while people might be mistaken, they also have an obligation to act on their “conscious conviction.” If people are convinced that they are correct, they will be cowardly not to act on that belief and to encourage doctrines to be articulated that they feel would harm mankind. Mill answered that the only way in which a person can be sure that he is correct is if there is full freedom to question and deny his views. Humans have the potential to correct their errors, but only through experience and debate. Human opinion is of importance only so long as people are open to critique. Thus, the only way a person can be confident that he or she is correct is when he or she is continually open to alternative opinions; there must be a standing invitation to attempt to disprove his or her views.

The opinion that the authority is attempting to suppress might be valid. Many who wish to eradicate it, of course, reject its truth, but they are not infallible. They have no right to settle the matter for all humanity and to remove any single citizen from the means of judgment. To decline to consider an argument, since they are convinced that it is wrong, is to believe that their confidence is the same as absolute certainty. All the silence of the debate is the presumption of infallibility. It could be permitted to be condemned on the grounds of this common statement, not the worse for being common. Mill claims that it is a failure to stifle dissident views in the interests of the common good. He writes about Socrates and Jesus Christ, two illustrious men in history who were executed for blasphemy. Mill claims that if one is to recognize the validity of punishing non-religious views, we must also accept that one will also be justified in punishing Christianity.

frequently Asked Questions