What are Mill's four main arguments in defence of freedom of speech?

The Infallibility Argument says we can never assume that the views we hold are true. Nobody is infallible, therefore nobody can be certain of being entirely correct. We can never be justified in suppressing views contrary to our own, because it is always possible that we are at fault, and these contrary views are in fact the truth. "There is quite a gulf ... between our being certain of a view, and the view being certain" [u1-2: p183]

An example from history is that of Galileo, who was imprisoned as a heretic by the Catholic Church for advocating Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbited the Sun. The ruling authorities assumed their own infallibility, whereas - as we now know - they were in fact wrong.

Note that we are no more justified now in suppressing geocentric models than the church was in suppressing Galileo's heliocentric model, as it may turn out that we are in turn wrong. No matter how much evidence we have, or think we have, we can never be justified in assuming our infallibility. "Many beliefs that were once held as certainties have been considered by later generations not only to be false, but to be absurd" [u1-2: p183].

The Partly True Argument considers the case when the prevailing view is in fact correct, or at least mostly correct. In the same way we can never assume our own infallibility, we can never assume that our views are the whole and complete truth. Thus, a dissenting view, while it may be mostly in error, may still contain valuable insights that will force us to re-evaluate those portions of our view that need revision. Through the process of debate, the faults of the prevailing view are exposed, while the strengths of the dissenting view emerge. The dissenting view may ultimately be discarded, but not before providing new insights that can be used to augment and strengthen the prevailing view, bringing us a little closer to the whole truth.

An example that Mill uses is Rousseau's view on the advancement of civilisation [u1-2: p97]. The predominant view of the time was that civilisation was an absolute good. Development, progress and expansion were to be encouraged without reservation. In contrast, Rousseau celebrated the simplistic lifestyle of the 'noble savage', and decried wonton advancement. He claimed that "developments in the arts and sciences ... had caused more unhappiness than happiness, and, furthermore, had corrupted public morals" [u1-2: p184].

While his arguments were ultimately rejected, they forced a re-evaluation of the prevailing ideas, and what emerged was a more tempered view of civilisation - one that acknowledged that it was not without fault, and that societies previously considered barbaric were not without merit. The prevailing view was strengthened and improved through conflict with a dissenting view.

The Dead Dogma Argument suggests that if a view is not held up to frequent scrutiny then it will stale and atrophy. The view will become dogma, no better then blind prejudice. Just as physical fitness is desirable even if one's lifestyle does not require it, so too is mental vigour desirable for the health of a society. "Our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion" [Milton. u1-2: p100].

If a truth is learnt by rote then there is no real understanding. In particular, if a view is unquestioningly accepted merely because a respected authority advocates it, then a person becomes little more than a machine following instructions. If there is no questioning, then there can be no understanding, and without understanding it makes no difference whether the view is true, false or unknown. "However true it may be, if it not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth" [u1-2: p186]. Thus this argument applies even in the case of a prevailing view that is wholly and completely correct.

A modern example can be seen in computers. Many people use computers with no understanding of how they work. They learn by rote a sequence of key strokes and button clicks that accomplish the task at hand. If they never question the sequence, they will never understand it. If they never try alternative methods, they will never expand their knowledge of the computer's capabilities. If they are taught the wrong sequence but never question it, the error will never be discovered and never corrected.

The Link with Action Argument asserts that in such an apathetic society, where the prevailing view is unchallenged, its importance will be lost. "When a belief isn't challenged it ends up being held as simply a verbal formula, incapable of stirring anyone to action" [u1-2: p97]. The view will be held, but its relevance will never be considered, and thus it will lose all influence over how its adherents actually behave.

This can be seen in many of the ostensibly Christian people in the modern western world. They claim to believe in the tenets of the New Testament. They can quote them verbatim and accurately apply them to theoretical scenarios or to the actions of other people. Yet many of the teachings of Jesus are very hard to live up to, and often they may simply not bother. Without frequent questioning and reinforcement, the reason for the belief is forgotten and the belief becomes unimportant. Hence its power to motivate action is lost.

-

This last argument is, in my opinion, the weakest. If nothing else, the Link with Action Argument is little more than a discussion of the consequences of the Dead Dogma Argument. It can be reduced to the statement "a dead dogma has no power to motivate action". If you accept the Dead Dogma Argument, and asked the question "why is a dead dogma undesirable", one possible answer would be this statement. If you were to successfully refute the Dead Dogma Argument, then the Link with Action Argument becomes irrelevant. Mill's fourth argument contributes no new ideas, and does not stand on its own.

However, even if we consider the argument on its own merits, we can see it is flawed. We can accept the premise that people hold views without questioning them, i.e. as dead dogma, because most of us probably know such people. We can equally accept that there are people whose professed beliefs do not motivate their actions. This is simply hypocrisy, and most us again probably know such people. However, Mill does not adequately provide a conclusive link to demonstrate that the one necessarily leads to the other. He gives the example mentioned above of western Christians, but this is no more than anecdotal evidence at best.

A person might hold a belief as dead dogma, yet still faithfully follow the tenets of that belief. Ignorance does not necessitate hypocrisy.

Alternatively, a person might vigorously debate their beliefs at great length, yet still their actions run contrary to them. Debate does not prevent hypocrisy.

It might be argued that if you debate your beliefs and then go against them, they are not really your beliefs. Rather, they are formulae you are regurgitating. This is exactly what 'dead dogma' is though, and Mill says that a society that encourages vigorous debate will prevent dead dogma. So we have a conflict between Mill's fourth argument and his third argument, on which it depends.

It might be said that if a debater does not hold the advocated views then the debate is fraudulent. However this is the "devil's advocate" technique, which Mill himself encourages [u1-2: p90]. Also, even if the debate was fraudulent, it is still a debate. Dissenting views are being heard and discussed. Freedom of speech is being exercised.

As an example, consider a contemporary topic - the legality of recreational drugs. This is a frequently discussed topic in Britain, but there are still people who hold exactly the blindly prejudiced views that Mill is talking about. Without any consideration of the arguments, they maintain the opinion that all drugs are bad and should be banned, and that all drug takers should be arrested and imprisoned. There will be a substantial percentage of these people who will happily smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol with no thought as to the hypocrisy involved.

Thus in a society in which freedom of speech is widely practised, we still see the type of atrophied thinking that Mill claims freedom of speech can prevent.

Simple human failings can play a large part. Apathy, greed, complacency and laziness may exert far more of an influence over a person than their beliefs. No matter how vigorously a view is debated, actually taking action may require too much effort or too much risk. If taking drugs is considered 'cool', then people will take drugs. If communism is considered 'bad', then people will denounce it. In these cases, action is linked not to debate, but to social pressures.

Let us now consider societies in which dissension is not tolerated. Modern examples include Iran under Khomeini or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Even under conditions of the harshest censorship we still find many a young Muslim ready to fight and die in defence of his faith. This suggests that it is strength of belief rather than vigorous debate that motivates actions, and religious beliefs are rarely strengthened through questioning. Rather they are strengthened through reaffirmation.

A slightly different example is today's USA, where questioning one's country has become socially unacceptable to the point where it is simply not done. What the president says, goes. Patriotic citizens go to war without thought or debate, to fight and die as eagerly as any religious zealot. In this example the lack of debate is not due to lack of freedom of speech, but it still serves to illustrate that debate is not required for a link with action.

If we look further back in history we come back to Galileo, but this time as a counter-example. The Catholic Church had enjoyed unquestioning loyalty for centuries. Their beliefs had certainly become dead dogma, but they were still highly motivated to defend them against Galileo's heresy.

It could be argued that it was Galileo's dissension that motivated the action, rather than any part of the belief itself. Without the threat of a dissenting view, there would have been no cause for action, and thus dissension should be encouraged in order to maintain motivation for action. Yet the action in this case is the suppression of freedom of speech, so this argument is suggesting that dissension should be allowed in order to motivate suppression. This is a contradiction.

Finally, as with all of Mill's arguments, only questions of truth are considered. Questions of offence, in particular blasphemy and pornography, are far more frequently the issues in debates over freedom of speech. On these questions Mill's four arguments have little to say.

I have presented examples to demonstrate that the presence of debate does not necessarily imply a link with action, and the absence of debate does not necessarily prevent a link with action. Thus I hope I have shown that Mill's argument for a correlation between dead dogma and the absence of a link with action is unsound.

Therefore, in my opinion, Mill's Link with Action argument is the weakest of the four.

Bibliography

Course Materials
• Units 1-2 - Arguments for Freedom
• AC1