Mill, On Liberty (Free Speech, Pt. 2)

Main Claim - is free speech valuable if we already have the truth?

If a true belief is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.

◦ Proper appreciation of a truth requires understanding it.

> And understanding consists in knowing why objections against it don’t succeed.

Supporting argument - when truth is presumed

◦ A truth not subject to discussion may just be accidentally true.

> Little value in just chancing upon the truth.

> Being right without understanding is better than being wrong—but not by much.

Counterpoint - teaching

You can just teach a truth and its proper justification and suppress all contrary arguments.

> One can know why one is right without having considered objections when one is given only the positive evidence, but no explanation of why the counter-evidence is wrong or misleading.

Rebuttal

Just false outside of peculiar cases (like math).

> To rule out alternatives, one must face the alternatives.

◦ Most knowledge is on the balance of evidence.

> When evidence-for outweighs evidence-against

Counterpoint - further discussion

◦ It is enough if someone has reasoned it through.

> We can figure out the balance, and prohibit all further discussion.

> The folk may be mislead when too many objections are out there.

Rebuttal

If objections are silenced, then we can’t know whether our views are really justified. You can’t refute or respond to a criticism that no one is allowed to express.

Any doctrine must always be questioned

Even if something is mostly true, discussion can bring out the whole truth.

◦ The full truth, Mill claims, is rarely achieved by a single even-minded individual.

> Few humans are truly neutral about anything.

Polemic

◦ Weapon only available to the majority.

> Always punches down - urges against “punching down” because minority opinions are in greater need of protection

◦ However still not for the law to interfere.

> Does not fully trust the law to identify which opinions are in need of protection.

Bigotry

◦ Defends any opinion expressed calmly and honestly.

> What about those who can express the vilest bigotry with the appearance of calm and measure?

> Perhaps: we keep our anti-bigotry “alive” by contending with this.

> What about those suffering from bigotry? What about their rights?

◦ Free speech is useless when it just means that anybody can say whatever they want whenever they want.

> To properly understand a doctrine means to be able to defend it.

Expertise

◦ Refuted the idea that we should just listen to experts and censor opposition to them.

> Does not mean that expertise plays no role.

◦ Experts know standard objections and can identify what is a new objection and, thus, what is worth considering.

Counterpoint - repetition with pseudoscience

> Pseudoscience typically: invalid arguments or arguments that have long ago been refuted.

> Nothing to gain for the truth by going over all this again.

Rebuttal

Repetition is good for keeping the truth ‘live’.

> But must be balanced against the opportunity costs of doing this every time someone raises a long-refuted objection.

◦ Surely must let the pseudoscientists speak, but maybe they don’t need to be included in debates.

Debates

> Settling an issue in public debate may hinder finding the truth.

> It rewards not honest truth telling, but doing anything at all to win.

◦ Most debates (also on podcasts, etc.) are not truth-finding exercises but competitions.

> And the truth might be the first sacrifice one makes to win.

Taiwo vs Mill

Mill (classical liberal) thinks opposition to PC is good: it protects truth-seeking, open debate, and the free exchange of ideas.

Taiwo: Eeven if some people oppose societal norms for good philosophical reasons (freedom of speech), the actual effect of this opposition is to act as “interference” that enables bigots.

Even principled free-speech arguments can end up protecting or amplifying bigotry, which is harmful to a truly free and equal society.

He says that “social shame and cultural pressure” are often necessary to make society livable. - a joke being misread, social reactions going too far, or someone getting unfairly judged is still better than segregation or public cruelty.