Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share nor sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

On liberty and debate 1

Whatever the merits of the arguments generated by the Frank Ellis affair, it is ironic that A. C. Grayling should have enlisted John Stuart Mill in support of those on just one side of the controversy (Features, April 7).

As Grayling observes, it was Mill's view that unless an opinion is "vigorously and earnestly contested" it is likely to degenerate into "dead dogma"; to become "inefficacious for good". The irony lies in the way Grayling cites Mill so uncritically. He doesn't seem to have noticed that, by so doing, he demonstrates the extent to which Mill's own argument has suffered the fate it warns us against.

Grayling maintains that those who hold opinions that are, "unjust" and "provocative... of discord" are still "entitled to voice these... on the basis... of free speech". Suppose that someone were to mount an anti-Grayling campaign, pronouncing that he is a man of low intelligence and dubious personal hygiene. Would Grayling support the right to mount such a campaign?

Mill says that it is often the case that conflicting opinions "share the truth between them", neither being "the whole truth" but each being "a part of the truth". If Mill is right, then the same rule must apply to Grayling's one-sided support for free speech as well as to his one-sided interpretation of Mill's argument.

Alan Haworth
London Metropolitan University

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
Jobs