John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty of Thought and Discussion"

1. What is the evil of silencing an opinion?

2. How does Mill answer the argument that we can forbid discussion because we must act on the bsis of the knowledge that we have?

3. How does he deal with the argument that although some opinions are untrue, they are socially valuable and should be protected?

4. Why do you think he chooses beliefs concerning God and a future state as test cases for discussuion of opinion? Does this choice make his argument more or less persuasive?

5. Which historical examples of the suppression of opinion does he choose, and why?

6. How does he answer the argument that truth will survive persecution anyway?

7. What is his arugument against denial of the right to give legal evidence to those who will not profess belief in a god?

8. Is his belief that religious persecution could revive in England consistent with his view that England has a free press?

9. What does he believe are British attitudes towards those with heretical opinions?

10. What is the effect of suppression of free opinion on individuals and groups?

11. Even if an opinion is true, are there reasons why it should be further discussed?

12. What example does he use of a once powerful series of beliefs now held by rote?

13. Does Mill believe there will be doctrines which will not be disputed? Is his belief that the nubmer of uncontested opinions will incerease consistent with his earlier comments on the need for freedom of discussion?

14. What features does Mill feel are lacking from contemporary education?

15. What are features of Christian ethics which seem limiting to Mill?

16. How does he answer those who would only permit temperate discussion?

17. Are there any defenses of free discussion which Mill has omitted?

How would you characterize his style and argumentative method?