Integrated Liberty and Communication

"One-sidedness has always been the rule, and many-sidedness the exception" (Mill, C&F, p. 382). John Stuart Mill lived in the 19th century and wrote about how liberty is connected to open discussion. Mill's thoughts should be continually discussed and learned from as time passes, because knew ideas can be formed. Freedom and open communication are directly integrated and should be a present part of the modern society. Successful communication begins with talking openly about all personal opinions, even if it takes courage to discuss. True freedom is also greatly affected by the way in which people listen to others' opinions even if they strongly disagree. After having discussed multiply sides of an issue, interpreting different opinions and the possibility that one's original belief could be wrong is also important for a truly free society.

One of the important aspects that contributes to freedom in the condition of successful communication is the form of talking that occurs. Initially, it is important to remember "there is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation" (Mill, C&F, p. 378). With this in mind, one should be more open to communicating their thoughts on any subject that they believe to be true. Honesty is the best practicability. When sharing opinions keep in mind the fallibility of the human brain and the possibility that the opinions you formed as an individual may be incorrect. This is not to say that personal opinions are undoubtedly wrong, but discussion provides for aspects of an opinion to be refuted if possible. The idea of sharing an idea in order for aspects of the theory to be debunked takes courage to accomplish, but it is in the hope of progress that it should be done. "Facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it" (Mill, C&F, p. 378).

There is an appropriate means as well as a defeatist way of articulating individual thoughts. An inappropriate way of sharing an idea would be to figuratively push notions on a person who does not want to listen to the discussion at hand. One can only concern themselves with the actions that are taken on a personal level, furthermore, the individual who does not remain open is the person who is to be considered responsible for there own erudition, not the person who is sharing ideas. To continue to coerce an opinion on a different person is the same as restricting another's liberty.

One issue that arises with Mill's arguments about free discussion is that he often earmarks groups of religious people and other's who believe in absolutes as depraved. Although Mill believes that traditional Christian morals are skewed, his view says that anything besides narrow-minded opinions can be considered fair. Although there may be disagreements as to the legitimacy of different beliefs, social norms such as those provided by religious values often set up guidelines of respect and equal treatment. This is not to say that all religious standards at the time that Mill was writing fulfilled this idea, but only that Mill should take into account that possibility.

True freedom in the form of open communication is also significantly affected by the listening approach that is taken. In the same way that individuals should speak openly, it is also highly beneficially to listen with an open mind. By silencing another person an individual would be declaring personal faultlessness. The reality of human flaw leaves to reasoning that any opinion has the possibility, even if slight, of being true. As a result of even the slightest chance of any belief being correct, "any person whose