Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
No related posts.
3 comments
J.S. Mill was very good on freedom of speech, He got to this conclusion by a very different route than an Old Whig, such as me, would get there (a utilitarian route – rather than a natural law route), but he got to the free speech conclusion.
Formally speaking the above quotation is wrong. The truth is the truth – whether it is “fearlessly discussed” or not (Iceland is still closer to the Artic than Britain is, A is still A, 1+1 is still 2, a morally responsible agent is still someone capable of agency – of doing other than they do, and on and on) – however the sentiment that J.S. Mill is expressing is a noble one.
I recoil from language such as “living truth” – because it reminds me of the Progressives with their “living Constitution”. However, J.S. Mill does not mean what they mean (“living truth” and in – LIE), he means that he values (indeed would die for) freedom of speech. That is the important thing – that he supports freedom of speech, not what “arguments” he may produce that lead him to this conclusion.
That is why I say “J.S. Mill was very good on freedom of speech”.
One odd thing is that, in economics, J.S. Mill did not practice the sort of free speech he generally preached.
There is no defence of the Labour Theory of Value against critics in Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” – instead Mill pretended that critics of father (James Mill) and family friend David Ricardo’s theory did not exist.
There is no refutation of even English foes of the Labour Theory of Value such as Richard Whately or Samuel Bailey. Just a pretence that “the theory of value is settled” (no dissent even mentioned).
Nor is there any dissent allowed on the Ricardian theory on land – although dissent (opposition to the theory in relation to rent and so on) existed.
As students were, at least in Britain, given Mill’s works as standard texts – knowledge that there were scholars who opposed the economic ideas of David Ricardo died.
The whole work of refuting David Ricardo (both on the Labour Theory of Value and on land) had to be done again – in the late 19th century, with such economists as Carl Menger and Frank Fetter.
However, I made a mistake above – I said “allowed”.
Of course J.S. Mill would allow dissent – he as not going to send anyone to prison for it.
He just would not “discuss” it – “fearlessly” or otherwise.
I am reminded of one his forms-of-words that really annoyed me when I was young.
“Everyone agrees that…” – normally this was before something like a certain service that some people were suggesting should be supplied by local government.
It just was not true that “everyone” agreed to such services being provided by local government – on the contrary there was passionate opposition, but the opposition is “put down the Memory Hole” as it were.
Much as the Westminster Review people and before them the Bowood Circle ignore the arguments of Edmund Burke and others – on various matters.
Still, on all the above, a defender of Mill could say…..
“Just because he did not practice what he preached, does not make what he preached invalid”.
One thing I do not know is how J.S. Mill’s works got such a stranglehold in mid Victorian Britain – after all he did not (as far as I know) hold a university position.
The history of ideas is a funny thing – normally there is not some sort of free debate, people come in and (via academic politics and so on) impose their ideas and chase out other people.
I am reminded of when the late W.H. Hutt was asked how the Keynesians “won the debate”.
His answer was …. “there was no debate, the Keynesians did not want a debate – they just tool control of appointments and of the setting and marking of examinations, and that was that”.
In the United States the phycology of Noah Porter of Yale is replaced by that of William James of Harvard without any debate (the work by James does not even mention the work by Porter that it replaced – let alone refute it).
Efforts at debate can also be shut down.
For example James McCosh wrote long refutations of J.S. Mill on certain philosophical matters – but the followers of Mr Mill did not reply to these works (even though they were best sellers – and James McCosh was a famous man, the head of what is now Princeton).
They just waited till James McCosh retired – and then removed all intellectual trace of him. If someone is not on the reading lists and does not appear in examination papers – they might as well never have been born.
This is, sadly, how the world works – not by “fearless debate”, but by academic politics and sending stuff down the “Memory Hole”.
But as the quotation from J.S. Mill reminds us – it would be better if the world did NOT work this way.
J.S. Mill was very good on freedom of speech, He got to this conclusion by a very different route than an Old Whig, such as me, would get there (a utilitarian route – rather than a natural law route), but he got to the free speech conclusion.
Formally speaking the above quotation is wrong. The truth is the truth – whether it is “fearlessly discussed” or not (Iceland is still closer to the Artic than Britain is, A is still A, 1+1 is still 2, a morally responsible agent is still someone capable of agency – of doing other than they do, and on and on) – however the sentiment that J.S. Mill is expressing is a noble one.
I recoil from language such as “living truth” – because it reminds me of the Progressives with their “living Constitution”. However, J.S. Mill does not mean what they mean (“living truth” and in – LIE), he means that he values (indeed would die for) freedom of speech. That is the important thing – that he supports freedom of speech, not what “arguments” he may produce that lead him to this conclusion.
That is why I say “J.S. Mill was very good on freedom of speech”.
One odd thing is that, in economics, J.S. Mill did not practice the sort of free speech he generally preached.
There is no defence of the Labour Theory of Value against critics in Mill’s “Principles of Political Economy” – instead Mill pretended that critics of father (James Mill) and family friend David Ricardo’s theory did not exist.
There is no refutation of even English foes of the Labour Theory of Value such as Richard Whately or Samuel Bailey. Just a pretence that “the theory of value is settled” (no dissent even mentioned).
Nor is there any dissent allowed on the Ricardian theory on land – although dissent (opposition to the theory in relation to rent and so on) existed.
As students were, at least in Britain, given Mill’s works as standard texts – knowledge that there were scholars who opposed the economic ideas of David Ricardo died.
The whole work of refuting David Ricardo (both on the Labour Theory of Value and on land) had to be done again – in the late 19th century, with such economists as Carl Menger and Frank Fetter.
However, I made a mistake above – I said “allowed”.
Of course J.S. Mill would allow dissent – he as not going to send anyone to prison for it.
He just would not “discuss” it – “fearlessly” or otherwise.
I am reminded of one his forms-of-words that really annoyed me when I was young.
“Everyone agrees that…” – normally this was before something like a certain service that some people were suggesting should be supplied by local government.
It just was not true that “everyone” agreed to such services being provided by local government – on the contrary there was passionate opposition, but the opposition is “put down the Memory Hole” as it were.
Much as the Westminster Review people and before them the Bowood Circle ignore the arguments of Edmund Burke and others – on various matters.
Still, on all the above, a defender of Mill could say…..
“Just because he did not practice what he preached, does not make what he preached invalid”.
Which is quite correct.
One thing I do not know is how J.S. Mill’s works got such a stranglehold in mid Victorian Britain – after all he did not (as far as I know) hold a university position.
The history of ideas is a funny thing – normally there is not some sort of free debate, people come in and (via academic politics and so on) impose their ideas and chase out other people.
I am reminded of when the late W.H. Hutt was asked how the Keynesians “won the debate”.
His answer was …. “there was no debate, the Keynesians did not want a debate – they just tool control of appointments and of the setting and marking of examinations, and that was that”.
In the United States the phycology of Noah Porter of Yale is replaced by that of William James of Harvard without any debate (the work by James does not even mention the work by Porter that it replaced – let alone refute it).
Efforts at debate can also be shut down.
For example James McCosh wrote long refutations of J.S. Mill on certain philosophical matters – but the followers of Mr Mill did not reply to these works (even though they were best sellers – and James McCosh was a famous man, the head of what is now Princeton).
They just waited till James McCosh retired – and then removed all intellectual trace of him. If someone is not on the reading lists and does not appear in examination papers – they might as well never have been born.
This is, sadly, how the world works – not by “fearless debate”, but by academic politics and sending stuff down the “Memory Hole”.
But as the quotation from J.S. Mill reminds us – it would be better if the world did NOT work this way.