I think these two approaches are wrong.
In contrast to thes approaches. I propose the belief of God should be suppressed, in the case of violent protest.
Mill says, opinion should not be suppressed. This approach is kind of right, but wrong. Here is what I am going to do to fix those problems. these are the plausible arguments. I can understand why brilliant people would make them, but they are wrong.
I’ve just given you an argument for suppressing the belief of God. Now I am going to give an objection to this argument. What about when the belief of God promotes the harm of others, such as in the case of violent protest.
In the work On Liberty, T.S. Mill argues that opinion should never be suppressed, because ________________, but I suspect there is a case where opinion would need to be suppressed. In this argument I will attack this argument by arguing for objections and replying to further objections.
The strongest objection to this could be violent protest, and I’m going to defend it against that object and therefore his argument fails.
Opinion should not be suppressed. It is a basic assumption of this paper that Mill was right about this. But, this is a time when it should be.
Let us consider the belief in God as an opinion. An opinion is defined by a view that does not have to be based on fact. Belief in God suggests one’s viewpoint. There fore the belief in God is a valid opinion. The disbelief in God is opposite the opinion of the above viewpoint. This is known as the contrary opinion. The contrary opinion is opposing the held opinion, but in no way is either opinion held in higher regard. They are simply different ways of seeing.
Not all opinions are true. Mill argues that we should acknowledge all opinion regardless of certainty (truthfulness) or falsity. He reasons that by acknowledging all opinion is using my judgment to the best of my ability by opening my self up to be corrected. There may be some truth with in a false opinion. By not hearing all opinions I am suppressing not only all true opinions but false opinions that may hold a grain of truth to them. So not only will the truth be hidden but In doing so I have compromised my judgment. For these reasons no opinion should be suppressed.
What if the opinions is true, but has no good reason, accurate justification?
First we must reflect on the validity of the held opinion. Second, it is more important to know a reason than not. The reason does not need to be good, but there needs to be a reason. A reasonless opinion renders the opinion weak, defensive and offensive. It is as if I don’t know why my opinion is true, nor do I care. If that is the case, I am holding my opinion in the manner of a prejudice.
Mill argues it is bad for a rational being to hold an opinion in this manner, without reflecting first upon the possibility that the held opinion may be false. We need to know why we think the opinion is true, if we wish to convince others of its truthfulness. (otherwise?)
The reason may not be good but there must be a reason because if one is aware of why he believes an opinion they can then from there determine the validity of the opinion. It is important to know the reason. For example, “I believe God exists.” “I believe this because I read it in the bible.” That is a reason. The reason makes the belief stronger. The reason allows you to show others where the truth of falsity lay.
What if the opinion is irrational? People can have any opinion they want but they must do so by being open to reason. Any opinion contrary to your own is going to seem at least a little less temperate to you. Therefore, irrationality is not enough to suppress an opinion. Even It is possible for even an irrational opinion to hold a grain of truth.
What is enough to suppress an opinion? When it will cause harm to others. What we must ask ourselves is does this do more harm than good?