Week+3+-+Mill

Mill writes, "We have hitherto considered only two possibilities: that the received opinion may be false, and some other opinion, consequently, true; or that, the received opinion being true, a conflict with the opposite error is essential to a clear apprehension and deep feeling of its truth. But there is a commoner case than either of these; when the conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them; and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth, of which the received doctrine embodies only a part." It seems that much of Mills argument is based on the fact that there is "truth" to be found, as opposed to falsity, and insofar as the argument is couched in this binary fashion, it seems to be problematic. This is because I am skeptical that any "truth" can be found out in our human condition, and if this is the case, then an argument whose premise assumes that there is objective truth to be found will be unsound. However, this is not to say that I don't think we cannot fashion views that tend towards truth, even if they are far from realizing it entirely. That is why the above quote is useful. I think the Hegelian dialectical approach is the correct way to establish societal beliefs. So, if we were to set up an organization that was responsible for reporting the "truth," like we discussed in class last week, wouldn't it be better to assume that the "truth" is unreachable, and that the dialectic model is the best model for our organization? Even the simple act of choosing the subject matter to report on is a bias action, and it seems clear that ongoing conversation is necessary for a synthesis that tends more towards the complete picture. In chapter 2 Mill states "If we would know whether or not it is desirable that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to exclude the consideration of whether or not it is true? In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truth can be really' useful". While truth has to be factored in in order to determine a propositions utility, it can and has been the case in history that some false beliefs were in fact useful. Beliefs that give people a sense of common interest and motivation, if false, still uplift people and help them to realize their potential. But then this raises the question of what is the most beneficial for people? I say some false beliefs are beneficial because they sometimes help people realize potential or various other benefits. Mill or others could say that these false beliefs, despite their benefits, are not beneficial because they spread falsity and this is inherently unbeneficial.
 * __Week 3 - Mill.__**
 * Afton Carlson**
 * Jordan Howser**

In discussing the value of hearing opposing opinions, Mill states, "Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form...." Two things come to mind--one example to confirm this theory and one to, possibly combat it. One, I believe this is the way philosophy classes are led hear at UI. By having students read contrasting papers, they are better able to form their own opinion than if the professors just told them what to think. I think this is good and useful. Two, I heard of the Canadian mounties who are the best at identifying counterfeit money. They are so good at it because of the way they train. They train by only studying the real thing. They are not allowed to examine counterfeit bills during their training. The idea is, and it seems to obtain, that if they are that familiar with the real thing, they will easily be able to spot a fake when they see it--and they are. What application, if any, can be made between the Canadian mounty example to Mill's insistence on hearing adversarial opinions from the source? Is this kind of controversy as valuable as he says? Can we not know truth otherwise?
 * Susan Thomas**

“Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they 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.” J.S. Mill If we consider this quote’s fundamental logic, then what are the other ramifications for things besides freedom of press? Reading this in a contemporary American context what are the ramifications for our current liberties? Prohibiting "errors" people make is the main premise for JSM because of the implications of legislating preferences. A child is asked not to touch a pan because it is hot but they do it anyway. This might be a universal provision defending basic civil liberties we are entitled to, because no matter how many measures used to stop one from error, it paradoxically promotes error. Could this argument apply to the War on Drugs, where the only person punished is the addict for error? Do we put cigarette addicts or alcoholics in jail for the same error? What about the prohibition effect from the 1920’s with alcohol? Are these two events any different and does this logic open doors to those mistakes we have to learn from by experience? How do we punish error of character when the only person effected is the self and no other?
 * Matthew Baughman**

In the last paragraph of Chapter 2, Mill states: “In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them.” I see this play out in a number of ways today. There is something like the Occupy Wall Street movement, which due to its initial eccentricities was and is discounted widely by the media and those in power. Also, you see reports like, “a rape occurred in the Occupy Chicago camp” which is reported for no other reason than to, again, discount the movement. Then there is someone like Ron Paul who is constantly referred to as crazy for his views on foreign policy or ending the war on drugs, because neither major political party agrees with him and he's old and just kind of rambles on about his points, even though he has enjoys a good deal of support. Finally, someone like Noam Chomsky who exemplifies what Mill says is required of a contrarian. Chomsky is so careful and dull with his language that he can’t be discounted. What you get with him is nothing but measured, thought-out, reasonable positions. But, they tend to be so outside the mainstream of thought. He’s not lauded by the mainstream media or brought on their programs, but he’s also not vilified or attacked. Instead he’s kind of universally respected in a way that most far-leftists are not. I guess I agree with Mill’s point. My question is this: Is this the way it ought to be? That is, does the established, predominant opinion enjoy a legitimate prestige, and thus have a good reason to not be attacked by those who are not themselves extremely careful, eloquent, and well thought out? I guess what I’m asking is: Is there some good reason the public reacts the way it does to radical speech? If people call for ending the war on drugs, saying "This is fucking racist and need to stop", should that be viewed differently than if they said, "The policies of the war on drugs have disproportionately affected minority communities...(while never being incendiary or angry)"?
 * Brendan O'Donnell **

Mill writes towards the end of Chapter 2: "The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feels much interested in seeing justice done them: but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause." Here Mills says that the worst offense to be made by the side of the popular opinion is to make the unpopular opinion look immoral merely because it is the unpopular opinion. He goes on to say that those who are holding the unpopular opinion are often a minority who few people actually care about seeing justice done for. Therefore, those who attack the popular opinion are neither safe from popular critique or helping out their own unpopular opinion. This seems like a huge issue that is also completely true. It's very rare to see an unpopular opinion make any headway and the few times that they do, it seems that most people lose steam quickly. The general population seems to be very fickle when it comes to issues that don't immediately and directly effect them even if they will effect them in the long run. What kinds of issues does this cause in politics? Is an unbalance between popular and unpopular unavoidable when it comes to making decisions? Is there a way to take away the pressure of popularity when it comes to politics? Does this relate back to how we were talking the other week about no one being able to talk to each other before the meeting and then coming in and saying their idea or voting without any outside sway? How much does popular opinion sway people in their personal opinions?
 * Beth Ropski**

In the last paragraph, Mill writes, “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.” Mill further states, “….it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct.” Does Mill then support censorship if a) the opposing opinions presented are clearly purposefully misrepresented, and therefore morally culpable and b) the information presented is not true? Mill was not writing contemporaneously with media giants such as Fox news, but had he been, wouldn’t such reporting be a candidate for censorship per Mill’s view? Mill would either support censorship in this case or not at all. Mill spends much time arguing that to deny the view of one **person** is to assume infallibility, a quality which no human can rightly claim possession of. He also concerns himself with truth, where people will not be able to know the ‘whole truth’ without engaging with the arguments against that which they believe. Both of those premises seem to contradict the idea that Mill is for censorship, but if so, why does he bother mentioning that there are some just circumstances for it in the last paragraph?
 * Ben Gearheard**

There was much talk about truth, honesty, and the discourse of reconciling and finding and trusting both in the text for today’s discussion. Mill asks, “Does a belief cease to be real and vital as soon as it is generally received—and is a proposition never thoroughly understood and felt unless some doubt of it remains? As soon as mankind have unanimously accepted a truth, does the truth perish within them” (62)? I think the telling part of this quote is the notion of ‘the truth perishing within us’ and how that correlates with out interest at present. With regards to ‘the press’ and their job, ought it be the case that they help investigate and discover the ‘truth?’ First, and the most basic philosophical question: what constitutes ‘truth?’ How is this ‘truth’ discovered? And, lastly how will be, if any, the ‘truth’ be accepted? If the ‘truth’ is accepted without question, which is Mill’s allude to it ‘perishing within us,’ then we need not be concerned with what is presented in the first place. If we (the public) don’t question the press, its’ intentions, and its’ findings—then ‘the truth’ which is presented to us will perish within us like the swallowing of food. The press must be scrutinized, questioned, and investigated. If not, we are libel to accept ‘truths’ that are in actuality, false. Exposing falsities presented in, and from the press is a necessity in not allowing the truth to ‘perish’ within us.
 * Bryce Blankenship**

**Aly Lamar**
Two things stood out to me in reading John Stuart Mill's chapter II, //Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.// The first is the notion that //"very few facts are able to tell their own story."// Mill emphasizes the need for discussion and the welcoming of a dissenting voice with, //"no one can be a great thinker who does not recognize [sic], that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead" (pg 15).// As a student of environmental science, I see this as a possible foundation for the argument that encourages scientists to be advocates, which I have known in the fields of research to be discouraged - just as a journalist is highly respected for being personally non-partisan. I'd be curious to hear Mill's response to scientists who wish to "just state the facts. "

Secondly, knowing that we will be discussing Wikileaks later in the term I can't help but wonder how Mill would respond to the belief that some information should not be shared because of it's threat to a nation's security. The closest he came, that I could find, to touch on this matter of sensitive information-sharing was in his recognition of receiving the Catholic Church's doctrines on //conviction// or on //trust//. Mill summarized: //"This discipline recognizes [sic] a knowledge of the enemy's case as beneficial to the teachers but finds means…of denying it to the rest of the world…If the teachers…are to be cognizant [sic] of all they ought to know…everything must be free to be written and published without restraint" (p. 19).//

**Tim Johnson** "I acknowledge that the tendency of all opinions to become sectarian is not cured by the freest discussion, but is often heightened and exacerbated thereby... it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect." Mill has not EXACTLY arrived at a world-shaking revelation here; one has but to live in this world to observe the phenomenon Mill enumerates. That said, I have to wonder, where does this leave our democracy? In our media, as in our politics, there are competing poles, each clamoring for the attention of "the public," which is, presumably, Mill's "more disinterested bystander." The problem is that the 'disinterested bystander' of today is SO disinterested that he rarely if ever participates! I find it difficult to believe that humanity has changed so much from Mill's day that the same was not as true then as now; if this is the case, and all public discourse consists merely of competing demagogues, how salutary an effect does the media really provide?

In chapter 2 Mill states, “ It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry, or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. ” If my interpretation is correct Mill, while aware of the problems rampart free speech can bring forth such as slander, biotry, etc., feels that the law has no place in curtailing it but rather it should be the burden of personal opinion. Now obviously Mill wrote this before the modern era of media domination, but isn’t that too idealistic to be followed now? If powers like fox news were free of all governmental restrain could personal opinion ever muster enough power behind their words to make a difference?
 * Travis Dawson**

In Chapter two of //__On Liberty__// Mill says " He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties." I think this passage is great way of explaining that for a mat to truly have freedom he must choose it for him self and not be forced into it. Mill here is saying that if we just let the world or society we live in make all our choices for us then we are slaves to it. my question is, do you think Mill would maintain this way of thinking in a modern setting, or would he just accept it like the rest of us. I think it would be a mixed bag; one reason he might be for this sentiment is because in this day and age we choose to continue being free, and all we have to do to loose it is act against the norms and laws that let us stay free. I think he would argue that if man chose to act in such a way that he fought the world he would be like a beast because he is almost too free. ** Tyler Morrison ** In discussing Christianity as an example of the importance of discussion Mill states that: “They are nor insincere when they say that they believe these things. They do believe them, as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never discussed…when ever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B. to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.” Mill here is using this to show that it is important to discuss beliefs will others, because this will lead to an overall better understanding of what the truth is and that it is not ideal to blindly follow what you have heard. Although this does lead to belief, it doesn’t lead to a completely sound and well-rounded belief. This to me seems like an ideal for human being’s interaction with their own existence, but I wonder if it is truly the best when a grand scale is taken into consideration. Due to the fact that many people have differing intellectual capacities, where is the line drawn in terms of discussion and teaching, or can such a line truly be drawn. If one person has a much greater ability to reason over another person, wouldn’t a discussion between the two be fairly one-sided, leading to the lesser reasoning person following the ideas of the other blindly, due to his lack of understanding or ability to argue otherwise? **Kris Kinzler** In laying down ground rules for becoming a wise man, Mill writes, "...his errors are corrigible. He is capable to rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience...Very few facts are able to tell there own story, without comments to bring out their meaning." Considering later on in this class we'll be discussing the release of government documents by wikileeks, how is it that we are going to understand what the documents really mean, beyond just being facts, without having an open discussion with the government. Without collaboration between the public and the government, wouldn't the public merely be coming up with conclusions based on their own bias that the gov. is shady and evil? Which is arguably not a "certain truth" that we should be aiming for. **Ryan Braun** “[T]he only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner."
 * Brian Malone**

Genuine curiosity seems to me a rare trait in people. Mill seems to have thought the same thing in his day when one considers his frequent “99 out of 100 men” claims.

I find this quotation particularly relevant to a recent ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where Prop 8, which banned gay marriage in the state of California, was struck down as unconstitutional. On freeconservative.com, visitors to the site posted comments about the ruling:

“ Surprise surprise. Legislating from the bench.”

“The same people that want to get rid of the electoral college because it denies the will of the people applaud this decision denying the will of the people.”

“Thank God for that! Because I’ve always wanted to marry my car. ”

“So is immediate family members marrying unconstitutional also?

Absurd you say CA? Mothers/Daughters, Fathers/sons, brothers/brothers, sisters/sisters?  Whats wrong CA, you perverts want equal rights for all dontcha?”

[]

 I agree with Mill when he describes philosophical sectarianism as an evil. Absolutely none of the posts on the listed site attempt to grapple or even acknowledge the arguments of the people they disagree with. The vast majority of people I am personally acquainted with do this as well. This question might be a little far-reaching, but can humanity live free of factions and sectarianism? Are people capable of training themselves in the critical habit of thought so as to be able to suspend judgment and foster meaningful discussion about all topics? Or is that an impossible goal that should be replaced with the destruction of enormous nations and a return to small city states so that sectarianism can thrive in a relatively stable way?