Minority Opinion In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

After a thorough analysis of a portion of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, one can explore Mill’s argument that people should not limit the dissenting opinion. He uses his ideas about liberty, authority, and morality in the text to argue that opinions should not be limited. Mill would argue that because people are fallible, people should attentively listen to what their peers have to say. Mill believes people should not be allowed to limit someone’s opinion because of three arguments. The minority opinion could be true, the majority opinion could be true and the minority false, or the majority and minority opinion could be partially true and partially false. It is wrong for the majority to suppress the opinion of a single person because of the overall harming effect.
Mill claims that first, the dissenting opinion may be true. He writes that, “To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are sure that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty” (17). Just because it is right for one person does not mean it

is right for every person. It is an individual’s liberty to be able to speak what they believe is best for the greatest number of people. People act upon what they believe to be most true. Mill also argues that the liberty of opinion is at risk because people feel threatened by differing views. They are offended by contradictory opinions because those opinions might challenge their worldviews. The result is that those people do not wish to listen to the differing opinions and do not receive the knowledge of a possibly better option to increase utility among all people.
Mill’s second claim is that the majority opinion is true and the minority opinion is false, but he adds that, “...a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false…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” (34).

ADD
Mill’s third argument is that both the majority and minority opinions are partially true and partially false. If people are allowed to discuss their opinions openly and without fear of social and legal punishments, they may change their own opinions. When people are worried about social persecution or consequences with people of authority, such as the government, they are less likely to feel safe to share their ideas. Once people are allowed to openly discuss, they can optimize utility. Mill defines utility as the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. CONCLUDE.

QUOTE.
Mill would also support that if people kept what is known and refused to listen to what others have to say, this would be decreasing utility among people. What had served as the greatest utility before may not be the same for what provides the greatest utility among people today. With the constant silencing of new ideas, Mill would believe that they are overall harming themselves in the process. People should live with uncertainty and treat their opinions as hypotheses, not truths. People struggle to find the truth in situations due to their unwillingness to open their minds and listen to one another’s outlooks on different ideas. Thus, decreasing their morality as a person and decreasing utility as a whole. If people found a way to share their ideas amongst each other, without discriminating ideas differing from their own, there would be the potential of creating the greatest amount of utility for all.