by Dylynn Lasky
In “On Liberty,” John Stuart Mill advances one of the most eloquent apologetics for welcoming free and open debate – even about our most cherished beliefs: “A person with a strong opinion ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true their opinion may be, if it is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth”.
Yet, 163 years after “On Liberty”’s first publication, there remains a contingent of strongly opinionated people who hold that certain ideas are beyond discussion. Moreover, to even suggest discussing these “self-evident truths” is tantamount to harm, if not violence.
I’d like to submit that today’s incredulity over free and open debate has little to do with the validity of Mill’s arguments but rather with the possibility that his defense has itself become deadly dogmatic.
It seems, rather paradoxically, that there’s nothing more destructive to the vitality of a sound principle than its universal adoption. Formerly-revolutionary ideas dissolve into the mainstream and eventually become mere platitudes and cliches. But the “obviousness” of these ideas conceal that they remain true. In this sense, free and open debate has become to us like water to fish, who take for granted the environment to which they owe much of their existence.
Therefore, it’s time to rearticulate and revive Mill’s arguments for a contemporary audience to remind us of the commonsensical yet vital necessity of free and open debate. I present here three of Mill’s primary arguments – with some editorializing of my own – for our consideration and continued discussion.
First, humans are fallible. Thus, we may not decide on an issue for everyone in an untimely manner and prevent others from coming to their own conclusions. If we disagree with someone’s conclusions, rather than burn them at the stake (literally or metaphorically), we must attempt to demonstrate the error of their ways through rational argumentation. Not only is this more practical (firewood and gasoline are expensive) but, it prevents us from stealing another person’s autonomy and acknowledges their inherent dignity as reasoning creatures.
Second, “truth” is rarely held all at once. In most cases, we may be privy only to a segment of the “truth” instead of it in full. Therefore, free and open debate enables us to get closer to a more precise understanding of what’s “true” and what’s not. This is the catalysis of scientific discovery. The scientist builds upon and corrects the mistakes of those before them, in the hopes of inching closer to something more approximating the “truth.” Much like how we build upon arguments and correct misconceptions.
Third, in the most unlikely case that we are 100 percent certain of our beliefs, free and open debate remains necessary. If we are never forced to defend our position, we hold convictions like prejudice or superstition, and can’t claim to truly understand them. Consider the belief that “all men are created equal.” How many of us today, in total agreement with its validity, are prepared to rationally defend this claim against its detractors? The answer, if we’re being honest, is likely few. But what does that mean for America? For equality, generally?
That is to say: through free and open debate, we can come to know not only what we believe is true but also, more importantly, why what we believe is true.
Mill’s argument is by no means an invincible rhetorical shield, but it is one of the most powerful. One from which even its most ardent opponents have utilized and benefited seemingly without notice. Perhaps one day, someone will in fact prove free and open debate was just the naivete of a Victorian-era old white male. Until then, we will only find out through frequent and fearless discussion.
