Language and Power

People should be given a chance and space to have an independent opinion and voice their views as much as they wish because the liberty of thought exists. This freedom of discussion is fundamental to the majority, and they hold it as a right that should not be taken away from them.

The government should be following the thinking line of people that have set it on power. However, this is through democracy so that people in government are not allowed to go to the extremes of assuming dictatorial powers that would limit freedom. The author, John Stuart Mill, thinks that the government should not coerce anyone in going by its decisions but should instead follow the voice of people if at all it is democratic. He argues that silencing the opinion of people can only be compared to robbery. Robbery, in this case, result whereby an individual takes by force the possession that is not theirs. More so, the robbing is extended to the posterity as well as the existing generation who are deprived of their rights to think and come up with ideas on their governance and airing of political views. It is vital to note that no government on earth has more rights than the other. This is because they are all formed by the will of the people and they derive their mandate from the same individuals. Therefore, if any government arises to deprive its people their liberty, then the present generation and posterity is being robbed of its fundamental right.

In any setting, there are people who dissent from an opinion. On the other hand, there are those who concur with the same. However, there should not be any particular wrongness in silencing these people because they have the right to express themselves politically and socially regarding their lives and governance structure. Any opinion counts and should be taken into consideration so that there should not be the exchange of errors for the daring truth. The opinions that are being suppressed by the authorities may be having a big chunk of truthfulness that should be allowed to have its way. The author argues that some of the bodies do silence opinions by refuting a statement that is made by someone. They sometimes permit and approve claims when one is sure that they are nothing but a fallacy. In this case, the authorities must ascertain that their statement which is contradicting the inconsistencies that are created by members of the public must be undoubtedly true. This will lead to harmony between the government and its citizens.

People have the right to give their opinions on whatever subject they think they should. On the other hand, governments have also been accorded the right to judge despite being fallacious. However, the fact that they may err in their judgment does not deny the government power to weigh these opinions. Nonetheless, people should not be condemned before their arguments are heard and determined by the authorities. Every idea must be acted upon by the authorities, and they cannot merely be assumed to be wrong because their interests must be considered. Duties of citizens must be upheld so that actions are taken in their way and that the right outcome is attained. Objections exist, and they should be used in many circumstances. It is openly known that there are some of the disagreements that exist to all conduct.

Nevertheless, they cannot be used or claimed to be always valid objections to any particular manner that has been raised. This is the reason why governments have their rights and individuals also have their opinions. Therefore, none should enforce theirs over the other except in circumstances where one is sure that they are confident of being right. This will ensure that only factual information is presented to the concerned party.

The author discusses how a judgment deserves the confidence and how it has managed to be assumed so. The owner of the decision must then have some necessary qualifications to be granted the certainty that their argument is right. The first one is that the individual must be willing to have their opinions and conductcriticized. Secondly, the individual must be ready to listen to others who want to say whatever reason they have against the argument so that they prove out the fallacy. Lastly, the person should be ready to understand that the view can be looked at by others who have varying perceptions and minds and each may havedifferent versions of their side. Therefore, the opinion giver should be ready to deal with all these three situations for their judgment to be said to be deserving confidence (John Stuart, 2015).

Every wise man has had their ideas criticized, and they have always opened their minds to receive the opinions of others from different perspectives but on the same issue. Apart from this, human intellect is not in any way better. The most prudent humans who have found themselves to be entitled to trust their opinions have at many occasions opened their criticism against their views from a miscellaneouscollection of both foolish and wise individuals. The group of these people is what is known as the public.

Beneficial beliefs that are associated with religion and God should be allowed to take their place if individuals in the society approve them. The author argues that only bad men can go against such beliefs because they are quite useful by the public and the authorities. , and, therefore, there is no such fallacy. Some people may argue that the notion of God and such doctrines are infallible. However, in some cases, it may not be the case. Nonetheless, if they form the moral base of the society, then they are infallible.

Intellects that have been known to be giving their most certain conclusions have at times had to go back and pick some of the premises they had earlier silently rejected so that they can form sound conclusions. This means that there must be areason for every assumption that one makes even if their right state of mind may argue otherwise. However, there exists free discussion and its enemy. The latter claims that there is nosound criticism against the opinions of the learned individuals such as philosophers and theologians. These enemies further claim that ingenious people should be given the opportunity of expressing themselves without being opposed by ordinary folks.

Nonetheless, this argument by the author has some fallacies that can be seen clearly. In most democratic societies, people have divided opinions. Whenever the authorities try to come up with reasonable rules, the views of the public come in plenty, and they conflict with each other. There is the majority of the people whose opinion is respected by the authorities. However, in some of the circumstances, the authorities have to ignore the views of people to act in their best interest for the sake of society. Not everyone should be consulted on their opinion by time wastage and other considerations. It is indeed true that the freedom of discussion must be granted, but some instances demand it to be denied, especially if it interferes with the rights of others(John Stuart, 2015).

Any discussion and its freedom must be limited to some point for the sake of saving time because if an opinion is open to criticism, this may be perpetual since not the thinking of everyone can be allowed. The author may reply to this criticism by arguing that adequate discussions must well shape a valid opinion. However, the question pertains to the bulk and validity of any blame. Nevertheless, the author argues that criticism should be allowed. The fact is that he has not been able to determine whether there should be a limit to the objection to be given. This criticism does not, however, change the reality that mostfreedoms and liberties are necessities of a valid opinion although they have to be regulated. Without regulation, the ideas cannot be controlled because everyone would want to air their opinion. On the other hand, authorities acting on the best interest of uninformed majority may be right to sideline views. Therefore, the best thing to do is uphold the opinion and interest of every party to ensure mutual understanding.

 

Reference

John Stuart Mill (2005).Liberty: Liberty of Thought and Discussion, 2005

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?

Custom Essay writing Service

Stuck with Your Assignment?

Save Time on Research and Writing

Get Help from Professional Academic Writers Now