Category Archives: Free Speech

Are Christian beliefs ineffective?

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, religion, Truth Seeking

 

John Stuart Mill continued his robust defense of free speech in his book On Liberty by saying that even true beliefs benefited from challenges that free speech can bring. For example, since Christians seem to strongly believe the tenets of their religion, but they could benefit from vigorous challenge. How is that?

According to Mill, Christian beliefs, even fundamental beliefs are actually held without passion that John Stuart Mill he gave in his book On Liberty, surprised me. These were Christian beliefs which I always thought, in the middle of the 19th century, when Mill wrote, were very strongly held. Mills suggests otherwise:

“To what extent doctrines intrinsically fitted to make the deepest impression upon the mind may remain in it as dead beliefs, without being ever realised in the imagination, the feelings, or the understanding, is exemplified by the manner in which the majority of believers hold the doctrines of Christianity. By Christianity I here mean what is accounted such by all churches and sects—the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws, by all professing Christians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. The standard to which he does refer it, is the custom of the nation, his class, or his religious profession.”

 

In other words, according to Mill, people really believe the customs they have adopted, but their professed religious beliefs not so much. Customs actually govern our actions, not our professed religious beliefs. This is really just another way of saying actions speak louder than words, and when it comes to all of these profound and important religious beliefs they are not really effective in guiding our actions, according to Mill.  They have become stale by being the products of indoctrination and not robust debate.

Mill suggests that our actions are based on local customs that we unconsciously accept and allow to override the genuine religious views that we have:

“He has thus, on the one hand, a collection of ethical maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible wisdom, as rules for his government; and on the other a set of every-day judgments and practices, which go a certain length with some of those maxims, not so great a length with others, stand in direct opposition to some, and are, on the whole, a compromise between the Christian creed and the interests and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these standards he gives his homage; to the other his real allegiance.”

 

Mill goes on to list many examples of beliefs that are genuinely believed but do not actually determine how we action:

” All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-advised by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not lest they be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbour as themselves; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor.  They are not insincere when they believe these things.  They do believe them as , as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never discussed.  But in the sense of that living belief which regulates conduct they believe these doctrines just up to the point  to which it is usual to act upon them. The doctrines in their integrity are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put forward (when possible) as their reasons for whatever people do that they think laudable. But anyone who reminded them that the maxims require an infinity of things which they never even think of doing, would gain nothing but to be classed among those very unpopular characters who affect to be better than other people. The doctrines have no hold on ordinary believers—are not a power in their minds. They have an habitual respect for the sound of them,  but no feeling which spreads from words to the things signified, and forces the mind to take them in, and make them conform to the formula.  Whenever conduct is concerned, they look around for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.”

 

Mill argues that Christians have these sincere beliefs but actually they do not change how they act. When it comes to acting, people look around to see what their peers are doing and then act accordingly.  That has a marked impact on what they do.  Professed beliefs are weak in comparison.

Yet according to Mill the early Christians were deeply affected in their conduct by religious beliefs that now people claim to believe, and actually do believe though weakly without life and those beliefs do not affect how we actually live.

As Mill said,

“Now we may be well assured that the case was not thus, but far otherwise, with the early Christians. Had it been thus, Christianity never would have expanded from an obscure sect of the despised Hebrews into the religion of the Roman empire. When their enemies said, “See how those Christians love one another” (a remark not likely to be made by anybody now) they assuredly had a much livelier feeling of the meaning of their creed than they have had since.“

 

 

These doctrines that Mill selects are not mere ancillary aspects of Christianity. They included core beliefs. For example, that Christians should love others like themselves. What is more fundamental than that? Yet Mill concludes Christians claim to believe these fundamental doctrines but these claims have no substance. The beliefs are weakly held. Often, or should we say usually, they do not lead to action.  People like to hear themselves mouth these words. But they don’t really mean it when Christians say they mean them. There are of course, many more beliefs that Mill could have selected for similar treatment. And importantly, Mill says that the reason these beliefs are endorsed formally but not existentially is that Christians have not had to defend them against others. Christians don’t remember why these beliefs are important? Christians don’t remember the reason for the maxims.  Their beliefs are no longer real. Their beliefs have become empty husks no matter how often professed.

 I would invite my Christian friends to say why Mill is wrong. Or is he right?

Inherited Beliefs

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Truth Seeking

 

John Stuart Mill talks about beliefs that have been “inherited” rather than “adopted.” I think he means something similar to what I said when I said beliefs were more alive and vivid after they have been defended in debate. These are beliefs that are the product of indoctrination.  Mill suggests that when a doctrine is inherited

 

“conversion from one of these doctrines to another, being now an exceptional fact, occupies little place in the thoughts of their professors. Instead of being, as at first, constantly on alert either to defend themselves against the world, or to bring the world over to them, they have subsided into acquiescence, and neither listen, when they can help it, to arguments against their creed, nor trouble to dissentients (if there be such) with arguments in its favour. From this time may usually be dated the decline of the living power of the doctrine.”

 

If you never have to defend a doctrine it dies dormant inside of you. Debate and discussion, not indoctrination, are keys to keeping a belief alive. The worst thing that can happen to a creed is to have it accepted as gospel truth. That is a death sentence!

Mill returned to the fact that early on in the establishment of a creed no teachers have trouble teaching that creed. Learners find it easy to learn.  As Mill wrote,

“We often hear the teachers of all creeds lamenting the difficulty of keeping up in the minds of believers a lively apprehension of the truth of which they nominally recognize, so that it may penetrate the feelings, and acquire a real mastery over the conduct. No such difficulty is complained of while the creed is still fighting for its existence: even the weaker combatants then know and feel what they are fighting for, and the difference between it and other doctrines; and in that period of every creed’s existence, not a few persons may be found, who have realised its fundamental principles in all the forms of thought, have weighed and considered them in all their important bearings, and have experienced the full effect on the character which belief in that creed ought to produce in a mind thoroughly imbued with it.  But when it has come to be an hereditary creed, and to be received passively, not actively—when the mind is no longer compelled, in the same degree as at first, to exercise its vital powers on the question which its belief presents to it, there is a progressive tendency to forget all of the belief except the formularies, or to give it a dull and torpid assent, as if accepting it on trust dispensed with the necessity of realising it in consciousness, or testing it by personal experience, until it almost ceases to connect itself at all with the inner life of the human being.  Then are seen the cases, so frequent in this age of the world as almost to form the majority, in which the creed remains as it were outside the mind, incrusting it and petrifying it against all other influences addressed to the higher parts of our nature; manifesting its power by not suffering any fresh and living conviction to get in, but itself doing nothing for the mind or heart, except standing sentinel over them to keep them vacant.

From Mill’s perspective it is much better to have a creed in its infancy where is remains a lively belief instead of a dying leaf of a belief. Then Mill gives an astonishing list of beliefs which he believes have been inherited for such a long period of time, that they are no longer lively beliefs at all, but rather dead beliefs.

And one of the examples of such dead beliefs might surprise you. I will deal with them in my next post.

Debate adds life

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Skeptical Philosophy, Truth Seeking

 

Coke used to claim that ‘Coke adds Life.”  I would suggest, based on my reading of John Stuart Mill htat debate adds life. Mill makes another important point in his classic book On Liberty, to illustrate the truth of this position. He points out

“it is illustrated in the experience of almost all ethical doctrines and religious creeds. They are all full of meaning and vitality to those who originate them, and to the direct disciples of the originators. Their meaning continues to be felt in undiminished strength, and is perhaps brought out into even fuller consciousness, so long as the struggle lasts to give the doctrine or creed an ascendancy over other creeds.”

After that they die.

I will give another example that obviously does not come from Mill. It has often been remarked with interest that the Christian religion is much more vibrant in the United States than all or most other western countries. Why is that?  Some have felt that the reason for this remarkable achievement is the counter intuitive fact that in the United States religion has been kept separate from the state and the state has not been allowed to establish a religion. As a result, the US has robust religious freedom. As a result of this freedom of religion, each sect has to be constantly aware that there are competitive belief systems out there. No creed can take for granted that authority will support it. It must convince adherents to stick with it and must convince others to join if it wants to grow adherents. No sect can rely on official support. That is exactly what religious groups needs—convincing.  Anything less will be a dead creed. As a result each religious group must remain vibrant or it will lose out to competitive religious groups.

It is interesting that religious groups often forget this fact when they lobby governments to support their religious positions. For example, many Christian groups are keenly disappointed when they are not allowed to have public schools adopt and encourage their particular viewpoints. In the United States, reading the Bible in school has been prohibited. The amazing thing is that the United States without an established church has the most vibrant churches.

Establishing a church or a church doctrine has the opposite effect of making it less real and less meaningful, because no one is required to consider alternatives or debate its merits.

In Europe, for example, where churches have become identified with the state, the religions have become less vibrant. The absence of free discussion and debate leads to religious views become encrusted over and ultimately dead. Religious groups should be the ones to resist their own establishment as official religions.

That is why received opinions tend to be dead opinions. We all know that intuitively. We remember best what we have actively worked hard to learn. If someone tells us something it tends to stick.  I remember when I was a law student. I wanted professors to spoon feed me. The last thing I wanted was for the Professor to ask me a question and defend it. That was hard and scary. Being spoon fed ideas and principles was much easier.

Law school was taught on the basis of the case system. In other words we considered actual law cases where judges had made decisions and then we tried to extract principles from those cases that we applied to new situations.

 

I had one Professor in First year Tort law who was a brilliant and engaging lecturer. I loved his class. He summarized each case we had to know to such an extent that we did not even have to read any cases. In fact, he gave us the principle of each case and I dutifully wrote them down. He even told us we did not have to read a single case!  That made it very easy. Then at the end of the school year, to prepare for the exam,  I wrote crib notes reducing each case to one principle. I memorized about a 1,000 case names with a legal principles reduced to one or at most 2 lines. I was amazed at how well I could memorize. In fact I got an A in that class and was extremely pleased with myself as a result. I should not have been so pleased. I had not really learned much.

In my second year of Law School I took a course in insurance law. We had no choice. It was a compulsory course. I would not have selected the course because the Professor had a reputation for using the Socratic method. He asked us questions about actual cases that he assigned for us to read. In fact if we did not read a case he threw us out of the class because we were then not in a position to discuss it, for we knew nothing about it. That was humiliating and we did not want that to happen. So we dutifully read each assigned case.

Then in class the Professor of Insurance law never or rarely lectured us. Instead he asked us questions about the cases. I was constantly in fear for this approach, because I liked to sit with my head down writing notes, not wanting to be asked questions. After all having to answer questions would make me think. I did not want to think. I wanted to be told. This professor did not allow that. We had to read, we had to discuss whether we liked it or not. We had to think!

I was frequently surprised at how the Professor managed to find things in cases, which I had diligently read but failed to notice. He was brilliant. He found nuances to the legal principles that I could never find. He was a fantastic professor as I eventually realized after my fears subsided and I got used to what I had to do.

Eventually I realized I was enjoying the course and learning a lot. I loved the course. The Professor became my favorite Professor. Not only that but I was amazed at how much I learned in that class. I do not remember how well I did in that course. It did not matter for I had learned so much.

I was even more amazed, many years later how much knowledge I had retained from that class, even though I never practiced in the area of insurance law. The knowledge that was hard earned stuck with me for decades. The principles of tort law, which I had learned so well by rote memorization soon disappeared into the ether. I soon forgot them all. I did not really learn them because I had not engaged in the subject. Sitting back and learning by rote is a poor way to learn, even when the professor is very good and engaging. The principles I had memorized were not really meaningful. They were not alive inside me as the principles of insurance law were. As soon as the exam was over I started to forget what I had learned by memorization.

I think it is the same with principles of religion or ethics. The hard won principles which we must defend mean the most. The easy answers are dead and soon forgotten.

Many years later I became a part time teacher of law at the same University. I realized that I did not want to lecture students. I realized they would not really be engaged if I did that. So I became the type of Professor I had hated in Law School. I used as best I could the Socratic method that my Insurance law professor had used. I wanted my students to become engaged and learn something that would stick in their minds. I wanted them to debate and consider alternatives. I did not want to them to memorize even my ideas and my theories. I hope I did that. I drilled them with questions and made them defend their positions.

 

Indoctrination is not the best way to teach and is not the best way to learn. Indoctrination leads to the death of doctrine, as odd as that sounds. I know many parents who think they must do that, and provided it is done from a very young age, can lead to doctrines becoming so unconsciously accepted that they are never challenged and so long as person does not think about them, they might be held on to. But that is not a good way to bring such doctrines to life. That is a good way to create beliefs that are paper thin and blow away in the first gentle breeze of challenge or discussion.

 

Eventually I realized I was enjoying the course and learning a lot. I loved the course. The Professor became my favourite Professor. Not only that but I was amazed at how much I learned in that class. I do not remember how well I did in that course. It did not matter for I had learned so much.

 

I was even more amazed, many years later how much knowledge I had retained from that class, even though I never practiced in the area of insurance law. The knowledge that was hard earned stuck with me for decades. The principles of tort law, which I had learned so well by rote memorization soon disappeared into the ether. I soon forgot them all. I did not really learn them because I had not engaged in the subject. Sitting back and learning by rote is a poor way to learn, even when the professor is very good and engaging. The principles I had memorized were not really meaningful. They were not alive inside me as the principles of insurance law were. As soon as the exam was over I started to forget what I had learned by memorization.

 

I think it is the same with principles of religion or ethics. The hard won principles which we must defend mean the most. The easy answers are dead and soon forgotten.

 

Many years later I became a part time teacher of law at the same University. I realized that I did not want to lecture students. I realized they would not really be engaged if I did that. So I became the type of Professor I had hated in Law School. I used as best I could the Socratic method that my Insurance law professor had used. I wanted my students to become engaged and learn something that would stick in their minds. I wanted them to debate and consider alternatives. I did not want to them to memorize even my ideas and my theories. I hope I did that. I drilled them with questions and made them defend their positions.

 

Indoctrination is not the best way to teach and is not the best way to learn. Indoctrination leads to the death of doctrine, as odd as that sounds. I know many parents who think they must do that, and provided it is done from a very young age, can lead to doctrines becoming so unconsciously accepted that they are never challenged and so long as person does not think about them, they might be held on to. But that is not a good way to bring such doctrines to life. That is a good way to create beliefs that are paper thin and blow away in the first gentle breeze of challenge or discussion.

 

I have looked at truths from both sides now

Free Speech, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism, Truth Seeking

 

Mill wanted truths to be tested and defended against argument so the truth was lived. In such circumstances the truth is alive and vivid. Then, and only then, truth can avoid being a dead truth.

That is why Mill says, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”

To me it is like learning how to use a computer. It is not enough to be told how to use it. We have to use it to learn how to use it. Then the truth of how to use a computer becomes real.

So it is with reason.  A person might have been taught the reasons for an opinion, and those reasons might even be good reasons, but that is not good enough. If a person does not know what the reasons in favour of the opposite proposition are he really has no grounds to prefer either opinion. As Mill says,

“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 to suspend 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. 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.”

 

Neither authority nor desire is good grounds for a belief.  The only thing that works is vigorous open debate on both sides of a question with both sides able to argue their case fully and freely. We must experience fully the weight of the belief on the other side. We must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. Nothing else will do. “He must feel the whole force of difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of the truth which meets and removes that difficulty.” Unless one fully throws oneself into the position of the other we can never truly know what we profess to believe. We must see the arguments on both sides in the strongest light.

As a result of such reasoning, Mill makes a surprising and profound argument. He says, “So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of morals and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments, which the most skillful devil’s advocate can conjure up.”

Mill makes another suggestion.  He says, “mankind ought to have a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily answered; and how are they to be answered if that which requires to be answered is not spoken? Or how can the answer be known to be satisfactory, if the objectors have no opportunity of showing that it is unsatisfactory.”

So free discussion is essential to understanding fully the opinion held. Its absence is harmful to the worth of the opinion. It is not enough that we hold true opinions, the process by which we gained those opinions is of critical importance.  Mill put it this way,

The fact, however, is, that not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself. The words which convey it cease to suggest ideas, or suggest only a small portion of those they were originally employed to communicate.  Instead of a vivid conception and a living belief, there remains only a few phrases retained by rote, or if any part, the shell and husk only of the meaning retained, the finer essence being lost.

If you want a vivid belief, and which indoctrinator does not want that, free discussion is an absolute prerequisite. Without it there is but a husk of a belief—again—a paltry thing. That is why absolute free discussion is so vital. Free speech brings life.

Like Joni Mitchell sort of said, “you must look at truth from both sides now.” Otherwise, it’s only truth’s illusions you will recall.

The opinion is true: Freedom not Indoctrination

Free Speech, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism, Skeptical Philosophy, Truth Seeking

 

All I have considered so far, is John Stuart Mill’s consideration of the possibility that the statement might be true. How do his comments apply to statements that are true? For example, if you are a Christian and believe in the truth of the gospel can you benefit from heresy? If you are a liberal who believes that the election of Joseph Biden as president in 2020 was not stolen by fraud should you nonetheless accept and consider heretical opinions that the election was fraudulent?

 

Mill  argued that people should be free to challenge true opinions on the grounds that this would maximize the amount of benefit or happiness for society. You might have thought that this would be a difficult claim to establish.

 

Here Mill makes a fascinating point.  Anyone should be free to challenge an opinion even if is true.  This is an extremely important point and I never seriously considered it until I read Mill.

 

Mill asked an important question, how will an opinion be held when its truth is not freely and openly discussed. One would think that would not matter. Right? After all, if we believe it to be true because it is never challenged we will believe what is true.  But Mill asks, how will we believe that true statement?

 

Mill says, “however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as dead dogma, not a living truth.” Mill points out that there are people who believe that it is good enough if a person accepts what he is taught as true.  In fact, as we all know, most parents take this position. For example, they teach their children what is right and wrong. They want their children to accept that the things the parents think are wrong are in fact wrong. They want their children to accept that the things the parents think are right are in fact right. That is their goal. This is the goal of indoctrination.

Indoctrination is particularly robust in cases of religion—perhaps because rational argument and debate are so difficult and as a result the views of the children will be, it is believed by the parents, forever weak and subject to undermining by others. And that will not do. Mill strongly disagrees. So do I.

Indoctrinators don’t care if the object of their attention has any knowledge of the grounds of their opinion or not. What counts is the opinion, not the reason for the opinion. It matters not to these parents that the children could not make a tenable defence of the opinion against the most superficial objection. What matters is that the opinion is firmly held no matter what. Naturally people who indoctrinate others “if they can once get their creed taught from authority naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned.”

The problem with this approach according to Mill is that such an opinion can never be rejected wisely, but actually can be rejected rashly and ignorantly. That is because one can never shut out discussion completely no matter how hard one tries. When rational discussion creeps in, as it always eventually does,

beliefs not grounded on conviction are apt to give way before the slightest semblance of an argument. Waiving, however, this possibility, assuming the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument—this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This is not knowing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth.

 This is what faith is. Faith is not based on grounds or reasons. In fact, often it is held against grounds or reasons.  Mill says, it is held like a prejudice.  That is because it is not based on reason and evidence but something else—like a superstition. It is not enough to be told the grounds or reasons either. That is still indoctrination. It is not lived; it is not experienced. It is a dead truth. And how much is that worth?

 

We all need Heretics

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Skeptical Philosophy, Truth Seeking

 

If heretics feel reticent to discuss the consequences of their dissent there is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions and we miss out on the possibility that something of value might arise from such discussion. We are then the poorer for that. It is our loss. As John Stuart Mill said,

“But it is not the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end in the orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy.  Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects combined with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would admit of being considered irreligious or immoral? … No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.  Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.”

 

We need our rebels, mavericks, and dissenters. We don’t need more people that just agree with us.

Yet Mill acknowledges, “Not that it is solely or chiefly to form great thinkers that freedom of thinking is required. On the contrary, it is as much and even more indispensable to enable average human beings to attain the mental stature which they are capable of.” This is extremely important! Freedom of discussion and thought is crucial for ordinary people, not just great intellects. People like me. People like you. We must be free from constraint—social or legal—to think freely in order for each of us to be the best that we can be. If we allow ourselves to be cowed, we will not be the best we can be. Our “mental development will be cramped.”  For years, I kept my religious views to myself or to a small circle of compatible thinkers. This was a huge mistake! I allowed my mental development to be cramped! I am now horrified of what I have done. I will never be a great thinker, but until I free myself to speak and think and debate freely I will not be the best thinker I can be.

 

Each of us must break the yoke of authority, even authority with “mere” social power, for that is often the most pernicious power. We have to break out so that we can become the best it is possible for us to be. If we don’t do this, we choose to accept a second-rate self—a poor and paltry thing. And, of course, as Mill argues, all of us will lose out. We all need the heretics!

 

Social Intolerance

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Skeptical Philosophy, Truth Seeking

 

Even though we no longer put radicals to death for their opinions, John Stuart Mill argues, we must take a lesson to heart. Currently, “our merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to abstain from any active effort for their diffusion,” and that is just as bad.  In other words our censoring pressure is just more subtle. That is not good enough. We still must avoid, at all costs, censoring those opinions. We must allow them to be discussed freely, because they might be right, and we will never know if they are right or wrong unless we permitted them to be fully and freely debated by one and all.

 

It is often comfortable for us to bar fractious debate by “soft” means that do not include fines or imprisonment as was formerly done for we can feel at peace. This is often a convenient way to have peace in the intellectual world, but, as Mill says,

“But the price to be paid for this sort of intellectual pacification is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind.  A state of things in which a large portion of the most active and inquiring intellects find it advisable to keep the general principles and grounds of their convictions within their own breasts, and attempt, in what they address to the public, to fit as much as they can of their own conclusions to premises which they have internally renounced, cannot sent forth the open, fearless, characters, and logical, consistent intellects who once adorned the thinking world.”

 

This is a particular problem in the modern world. For example, I have heard some intellectuals feel constrained to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of reprisals from those in authority.  Sometimes they are referred to as “the woke” authorities. Conservatives in universities sometimes claim they are not allowed to speak freely by such pressures by those leftists in authority.  To the extent this is true those liberal intellectuals must be compelled to change their suppression of free thought. Suppression of free thought causes us all to suffer for we lose the benefit of hearing dissenting opinions.

 

That is why we must do everything, as Mill said, to ensure that “the open, fearless, characters, and logical, consistent intellects who once adorned the thinking world” are entirely free to engage with their discussion at all times in a fearless way without any social pacification! We need that. That is for our benefit; not just theirs! We must never abandon or constrain anything that might enlarge the minds of others so that they feel free to engage in the most daring of speculations on the highest subjects.

The Assumption of Infallibility

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Truth Seeking

In support of his claim that censorship required the censor to assume he or she is infallible. John Stuart Mill cites historical examples of the monstrous effects of the assumption of infallibility by censors. His first is Socrates. He is now recognized as the most exalted of all teachers of ethics, but in his day, he was executed for his opinions.  How wrong could the people of Athens be?

The second example Mill offers is Jesus Christ,

“The man who left on the memory of those who witnessed his life and conversation such an impression of his moral grandeur that eighteen subsequent centuries have done homage to him as the Almighty in person, was ignominiously put to death, as what? A blasphemer?  Men did not merely mistake their benefactor; they mistook him for the exact contrary of what he was, as treated him as that prodigy of impiety which they themselves are now held to be for their treatment of him.”

 

Even the wisest and most virtuous of men falls into such errors. If they do it, how much more modest should we be about our claims to infallibility? Mill gave one more example—Marcus Aurelius who had more valid grounds to think himself the best and most enlightened of men and had a well-earned reputation of being the most just of leaders, got it wrong too.  As Mill said,

“This man, a better Christian in all but the dogmatic sense of the word than almost any of the ostensibly Christian sovereigns who have since reigned, persecuted Christianity. Placed at the summit of all the previous attainments of humanity, with an open, unfettered intellect, and a character which led him of himself to embody in his moral writings the Christian ideal, he yet failed to see that Christianity was to be a good and not evil to the world, with his duties to which he was so deeply penetrated…the gentlest and most amiable of philosophers and rulers, under a solemn sense of duty, authorized the persecution of Christianity.”

If great men  are not recognized for what they were by censors,  as Mill argues, the rest of ought to be governed by the most extreme modesty and recognize that we could not possibly be infallible.

In the light of such monstrous mistakes, we should be forever modest of our abilities to approach infallibility! Even when we are so certain that we are willing to put people to death because we believe they are misleading us we get it wrong! All of these mistakes counsel serious humility.

This was what Jonathan Haidt called “moral humility.” There is no good reason to believe we will be good at censorship.

Sacred Truths

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, religion, Skeptical Philosophy, Truth Seeking

Some people believe their “truths’ because they have faith in them. Others rely on hunches. Some rely on the authority of parents, teachers, or experts. None of these according to John Stuart Mill are solid grounds for action. This is what Mill says:

“There 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 the purpose of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.”

It is for that reason that we don’t believe Putin is right when he says he was justified in invading Ukraine. Or we don’t believe the Ayatollah that Salman Rushdie should be killed? Or that gays are bound for hell because the Bible or the local preacher the says so.

Mill makes it clear that no opinions should be exempt from this process. He points out that there are some who urge that some principles are so certain that we should not be permitted to question them. But Mill disagrees. All opinions and all principles, even fundamental principles should be subject to challenge in this way. Only then can we really be certain. Or at least as close to certain as we can get. This is the result of living in an age that Mill says some call “destitute of faith, but terrified of scepticism in which people feel sure, not so much that their opinions are true, as that they should not know what to do without them—the claims of an opinion to be protected from public attack are rested not so much on its truth, as on its importance to society.” Of course, as Mill points out, this just shifts the problem, for it is just as important to have an infallible judge to determine which opinions are noxious or useful as to determine those that are true or false. In either case, the opinion must be allowed to be free to defend itself.

The real problem, Mill says, is not feeling sure of a doctrine, which he calls the assumption of infallibility, but rather the undertaking to decide this question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. This must be denounced no less when it is done to “protect” solemn convictions. All opinions must be free to defend themselves, even the sacred ones that are most important to us.

All truths should be subject to debate and argument. None are exempt. Not even sacred ones. That is what free speech means. All “truths” can be freely challenged.

Provisional Truth; Absolute Truth

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism, Truth Seeking

We always pursue absolute truth, but we never achieve it.  A wise man once said, follow the man who seeks the truth; flee the man that finds it. People who claim to have the truth are dangerous.

That is why, John Stuart Mill argues we must always ensure that our opinions are never absolute. Opinions must always be provisional. They must always be open for genuine debate, because we might be wrong. We do this for ourselves as well as for others. We do that so that we can have the greatest possible confidence in our opinions. If we don’t keep our “truths” provisional, we have a greater chance of being wrong. And that is a chance we are never justified in taking. Once we close our mind to debate we close it to possible correction by the truth.

How would you like to cross a bridge that had been designed by an architect or engineer whose mind was closed to the possibility that he might be wrong and therefore was never willing to listen to any possible counter argument? As Mill said,

The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so?  Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the 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

The wisest men or women are always open to correction. Everyone makes mistakes so everyone must be open to stand corrected.  If you know someone who is not open to correction you would be wise to steer clear of believing that person.

This of course is the attitude of what we expect of the ideal judicial mind. This is like the ideal observer of moral theory, and is just as important. We expect it to be open at all times to the encroachment of truth, no matter how inimical, no matter how unlikely, no matter how surprising. Judges must keep an open mind. Judges must never prejudge. Judges must be persuaded by evidence, rational argument, and reasoning. Each of us must at all times seek to attain this judicial temperament when we make decisions. Of course, if our decisions affect only our selves, we can be as cavalier as we want. When our decisions affect others, we must be more disciplined.

That is also why judges should always listen to both sides of a dispute and consider all arguments. A Good advocate is a judge’s best friend. Good judges know that good advocates must be encouraged and must be allowed to do all they need to do to prepare their case in the most effective manner possible. Good judges will always allow that.

Sadly, of course, not all flesh and blood judges meet these high standards. We see that every day. Only our spouses achieve absolute truth. Judges like the rest of us make mistakes. But we must always try to do the best we can. Therefore, presumptions must be kept to an absolute minimum. We must not prejudge. When we have no choice but to make a presumption, we must always be on alert to reject it as soon as contrary evidence or argument is presented. To add to the sadness, judges are expected to maintain an open mind, yet the common law imposes on them a rule of stare decisus. That is the rule that judges must follow the precedent decisions of higher courts. That is intolerable for us. We must not follow anything except our reasoning and the evidence. This rule has no place in our decision-making, though, the ideal judicial temperament has a place of honour.

As a result of this method, that I am calling the judicial method, has the best chance to leading to truth. As Mill said, “The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it.” If this method is not scrupulously followed the decision maker has the strongest chance of making a mistake. As Mill said, “knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.” When such a judicial approach is applied to a search for truth, the decision maker is entitled to have a restful sleep about the decision he or she must make.

Mill pointed out that even the Roman Catholic Church, “the most intolerant of churches” employs a devil’s advocate when it wants to obtain certainty in order to canonize someone. So does the judicial system which is essentially adversarial—someone speaks as advocate for all sides. The better those advocates, the more likely the judge will make the right decision. It pays to listen to all sides. Here is Mill’s conclusion, “The beliefs which we have most warrant for have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.”

That’s why free speech is so important. We should be able to listen to all opinions.