A debating society, by Isaac Cruikshank.
A cartoon by Scottish artist Isaac Cruikshank (1764–1811), father of the more famous George, showing a debating society grappling with the motion ‘Whether a man’s wig should be dress’d with honey or mustard?’. “Silence, gentlemen! to order, only ten speak at a time!” runs a caption below. “For if you all bray together it’s impossible to decide on this important question.” Cruikshank helpfully draws a donkey into the window to underline the key verb. John Stuart Mill deprecated uncivil language in debate, but believed that policing it hands too much power to the dominant party. The only equitable solution is not to police it at all, and remember that few people are ever persuaded by it.
Part 1 of 2
Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction.* The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically,* to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct.
* That is, unless the speaker gives himself away in some fashion, it is impossible to prove satisfactorily that he is dishonest.
* That is, in the manner of the ancient Greek sophists, teachers of oratory who hired themselves out to ambitious and often unscrupulous members of local democratic assemblies. See Rhetoric and the Beast.
Précis
Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that incivility and misrepresentation of facts in debate are to be deplored, but it is almost impossible to police them without injustice. This is especially the case with misrepresentation, because unless the speaker gives himself away there is no way of proving that he was being dishonest. (53 / 60 words)
Part Two
An illustration from Dialogues against the Jews by twelfth-century convert from Judaism to Christianity, Peter Alphonsi (fl. 1116). Peter spent several years in England during the reign of Henry I (r. 1100–1135) as court physician. John Stuart Mill was disgusted by the way that Christian churches cracked down on dissent (he did not live to see what scientific atheism would do in China and the USSR), yet he would not have asked any church to abandon the Saviour’s commandments simply to please prevailing opinion. That would not be tolerant: it would be a lack of moral courage, and would reward intolerance in others. See Social Intolerance. The tolerant believer or unbeliever holds firmly to his convictions but he does not force them on others, and he bears their abuse and criticism serenely.
With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely, invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation.
Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feels much interest in seeing justice done them.
Précis
Furthermore, said Mill, those who police discussions for incivility or misrepresentation tend to be people in power, which means that marginal opinions will suffer much more than fashionable ones. Worst of all is when those who do not take the fashionable line are labelled as bad and hate-filled people, since no one will stand up for them. (57 / 60 words)
