J.S. Mill on Hearing Both Sides: Paternalism and Liberty
This paper argues in support of J.S. Mill's position that both sides of any argument must be heard, drawing on Mill's foundational work On Liberty. The paper explains how silencing minority voices constitutes a form of paternalism — the coercive restriction of individual freedom — and how this undermines liberty, mutual respect, and social equity. It engages with contrasting views from Thaler and Sunstein on libertarian paternalism, applies Mill's "Liberty of Thought" to contemporary debates, and uses the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States as a case study illustrating how decisions affect opposing constituencies differently. The paper ultimately grounds its position in utilitarianism, asserting that maximizing social welfare requires genuinely hearing all voices.
- Introduction: Paternalism and the Case for Open Argument: Defines paternalism and introduces Mill's thesis
- Mill's Argument for Hearing Both Sides: Mill's position on silencing opinions and liberty
- Characteristics of a Balanced and Authentic Argument: What makes arguments legitimate when both sides heard
- Libertarian Paternalism: Thaler and Sunstein's Challenge: Counterargument from Thaler and Sunstein rebutted
- Same-Sex Marriage as a Case Study in Two-Sided Debate: Same-sex marriage ruling illustrates competing arguments
- Liberty of Thought, Power, and Moral Coercion: Power imbalances and Mill's Liberty of Thought
- Conclusion: Silencing Speech as Paternalistic Evil: Silencing voices undermines utilitarianism and liberty
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It maintains a clear, consistent thesis throughout — that suppressing one side of an argument is a form of paternalism — and returns to this claim in each section without losing focus.
- It engages seriously with a counterargument (Thaler and Sunstein's libertarian paternalism) before rebutting it, demonstrating awareness of opposing philosophical positions.
- The same-sex marriage example grounds abstract philosophical claims in a concrete, well-known legal and social controversy, making the argument accessible and persuasive.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of philosophical application — taking a theoretical framework (Mill's harm principle and liberty of thought) and applying it systematically to both abstract arguments about free expression and a real-world policy debate. This moves the essay beyond mere summary into genuine analytical engagement with the source material.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining paternalism and introducing Mill's thesis. It then elaborates Mill's position, discusses what makes arguments legitimate when both sides are heard, addresses a counterargument from Thaler and Sunstein, illustrates the stakes with the same-sex marriage case study, broadens the analysis to power and moral coercion, and closes with a restatement grounded in utilitarianism. The structure is logical and progressive, building from theory to application to conclusion.
Introduction: Paternalism and the Case for Open Argument
Paternalism is about limiting the rights of people by force. It includes stopping them from voicing their concerns and fears, as well as suppressing subordinates through coercion in any form (Goldman and Goldman 65). In his book On Liberty, J.S. Mill argues that no society can be considered truly free where paternalism is practiced at any level, since it erodes mutual respect. No one can be genuinely free in the absence of absolute and equal entitlements. This paper presents arguments on the topic of why J.S. Mill believes we need to hear both sides of an argument. The paper supports Mill's position, elaborates the key arguments in its favor, and puts forward examples and critical debates in support of that stance.
Mill's Argument for Hearing Both Sides
J.S. Mill contends that arguments must be allowed to be heard — by the government and by public doctrine alike (Mill 18). This position deserves support because it allows both sides of an argument to be substantiated before any conclusion is reached. Mill openly declares that infallibility would persist if those who wish to defeat an opinion deny its existence, even when truth is on its side. He affirms that refusing to hear such opinions is itself an act of paternalism. Governments and lawmakers should abide by this principle, as it would help them avoid paternalism and make society a better place for all, with equal rights.
It is widely recognized that serving all individuals of a country with equity — without discrimination based on gender, race, culture, religious orientation, or physical and mental disability — is part of every constitution in the world. Yet in practice, society often behaves to the contrary, amending laws when cases come before judicial courts in ways that grant privileged groups access to appropriate rights while leaving minorities the most adversely affected.
Mill further contends that paternalism has been evident in society for centuries, rooted in principles that target subordinates and the weaker members of society. Suppression takes the form of disregarding differences of opinion and taste — whether those opinions belong to the majority or the minority. Mill's principles also address how plans and policies are framed to favor the powerful, selecting features that serve narrow interests. Liberty, in this view, is exercised by only one section of the social order, while others remain deprived or impeded. The same logic applies to the present argument: if both sides are not heard, the result is a refined form of paternalism in which the powerful majority is heard while the weaker minority is subjected to diminished freedom of speech — and therefore, diminished liberty.
Characteristics of a Balanced and Authentic Argument
Certain characteristics make an argument authentic and justify the necessity of hearing both sides. First, a good argument tends to be detailed, including minute facts that might be overlooked if only one perspective is considered (Condlin 84). Second, hearing both sides yields multiple dimensions, since numerous people hold unique opinions. All must be included to keep the argument genuinely multidimensional. A holistic approach can be applied in this manner, maintaining balance and avoiding bias. When both sides are not heard, a dispute remains one-sided and therefore less reasonable. Legitimate considerations must be maintained so that focus is not lost, and subtlety should be preserved to avoid over-emphasizing the same side repeatedly. A bilateral view of any idea presents listeners with equal emphasis on their respective beliefs, so that neither side appears more important than the other.
Unless both sides are heard, it cannot be determined which side is more logical and trustworthy. A well-constructed argument should have an emotional dimension that makes it believable. When words are logically arranged with ideas and facts, arguments naturally carry weight that conveys conviction. That certainty and appropriateness is bound to engage listeners and invite further discussion, enhancing the argument's overall persuasiveness.
With these assertions, Mill's position on paternalism is reinforced: exerting coercive power over the weak is unjustified. Minorities should be allowed to voice their opinions with equal force. The moral coercion of public opinion must be observed, particularly in legal penalties, so that liberty and self-protection are fairly exercised (Miller 13). This would allow both sides to be heard with equal attention, and both supporting and contradicting opinions to be discussed thoroughly. To prevent what Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority" (Miller 9), those in positions of democratic authority must act idealistically and uphold basic standards of liberty that are applied equally across all sections of society, including both majority and minority groups.
Conclusion: Silencing Speech as Paternalistic Evil
The stance of this paper is in support of Mill's statement that both sides of the argument should be heard, since the silencing of one's expression would be a typical form of paternalism. This would be counted as a peculiar evil that robs the human race of its freedom and liberty. Generations would be repressed for years to come, and holding the right opinion would be treated as illegitimate. Truth would be traded for the advantage of the privileged, and the right to articulate genuine standpoints would be denied — obscuring the clear vision of a free society whose foundation rests in utilitarianism, precisely as Mill presented in his foundational work.
Works Cited
Condlin, Robert. "Cases on Both Sides: Patterns of Argument in Legal Dispute-Negotiation." Maryland Law Review, vol. 44, no. 1, 1985, pp. 65–136. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol44/iss1/6
Goldman, Michael, and Alan Goldman. "Paternalistic Laws." Philosophical Topics, vol. 18, no. 1, Spring 1990, pp. 65–78.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Batoche Books, 2001.
Newport, Frank. "In US, Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%." Gallup, 22 May 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx.
Thaler, Richard, and Cass Sunstein. "Libertarian Paternalism." American Economic Review, vol. 93, no. 2, May 2003, pp. 175–179. DOI: 10.1257/000282803321947001.
Chappell, Bill. "Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal in All 50 States." NPR, 26 Jun. 2015, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.