Essay on the Work of John Stuart Mills

Originally Written: 4 September 2008
“Judgment is given to men that they may use it.” This brief sentence sums up the main idea of English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work, Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. Mill was a well-educated man who wrote on many topics in order to convey his opinion. And ironically, that is exactly what his paper is about. Opinions – the necessity to look at both sides, Mill writes. He sifts through many examples throughout his examination of the topic, encompassing various themes.
Mill begins by mentioning government, and providing several examples having to do with this theme. He says that government should not limit free speech, even though it could if the people wanted the government to do so. He argues that by denying dissenters the opportunity to express their opinions, the “human race” and posterity lose out on the chance of “exchanging error for truth”, or appreciating the general consensus more if the dissenters are in fact wrong. Mill goes on to write that individuals and government have a responsibility to form their own opinions – but never force others into agreeing or going along with them. These opinions serve as a guide for our own conduct. He says that individuals should constantly compare, edit, and adjust their opinions by paying attention to the stances of others. However, he creates an exception, saying that as long as the public consents, government may enforce some laws simply to preserve individuals’ well-being (as long as it is necessary and vital). However, government is not the only theme for examples that Mill explores.
Religion also seems to be a common theme for arguments in Mill’s work. He condemns the Roman Catholic Church for its practices and it’s parishioners’ perception as the Church being the ‘be all and end all’ of reasoning. Furthermore, he questions as to why, if people believe so fervently in the fact that their viewpoint is truth, they don’t try and make their religion into laws? He even goes so far as to say that those who placed Jesus on the cross were justified in doing so. They did what they believed was right, he argues. However, it seems contrary to his point when he presents this example. By killing Jesus these men forced their opinion on others, Jesus especially, and thereby changed history, in arguably perpetual terms. In order to perhaps become more convincing, Mill also tries a more general approach, devoid of any one theme, except perhaps the theme of miscellaneous examples.
Mills also references several non-themed arguments in his work. He mentions Socrates, who was generally believed to be wrong in his time, but actually came up with many revolutionary ideas. He also appeals to the more scientific mind when he says that if someone is so confident in their opinions, why not let them be challenged? Just like a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be tested, so too should a truth, argues Mills. It must be testable in order to prove its worth as a fact. He points out that it’s as if people are threatened by having what they hold to be truths questioned, once again referencing the Roman Catholic Church. He states that if society as a whole wants to enrich the minds of it’s citizenry with knowledge and critical thinking skills, what better way than to debate over the validity of something which some people regard as a truth, or hold as an opinion? He goes on to say that until the irrefutable evidence is acquired to say that something is a fact, we don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the foundation of our opinions. Lastly, a vital point that Mill makes in his justification for his reasoning is that in order to have a true comprehension of “moral and human subjects”, individuals must look at all sides of an argument. If there isn’t more than one side, says Mill, it is hard to believe anything (because there is no opposing view to compare it to).
In summation, Mill explores several themes throughout his work, in order to convince his readers that everyone should use the analytical abilities given them to discover their own versions of the truth. He presents several arguments, many of which prove to be logical and unbiased. However, he does at times represent a slanted point of view – clearly expressing his distaste for the Roman Catholic Church several times. Yet, in the end, it is up to his readers to decide whether or not to take what he says as true. Because after all, how could he refute what he believes to be the fact that everyone should reach his or her own final analysis of an opinion or truth?