Friedrich Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill both comment on opinions and the freedom to express those opinions, even if they go against the norms of society. Throughout history, there have been laws put in place that prohibit one from having an opinion that differs from that of his or her leader. For example, prior to the freedom of America from Great Britain, some were on trial for having revolutionary ideas. This is the kind of legislation that Mill would go against. Nietzsche writes about different classifications to show what the world is like with people who either go with the social norms or go against those same norms. Mill argues that it is not morally correct to shut down one’s opinion simply for being different, as it could be a true claim in disguise. Although Nietzsche and Mill would agree on the freedom of opinion, Nietzsche’s writings about slave morality and master morality go against Mill’s arguments, although Mill’s beliefs involve how the world should be.
Nietzsche was critical of Kant, who believed all people should act and think in a specific way, within a moral law. This means Nietzsche believed people should be able to think outside of the box. One should not be penalized or looked down upon for having a contradictory opinion. Mill agrees with this because although an opinion goes against the norms of a specific time or society, it does not necessarily mean that opinion is not correct. Mill makes his claim that one should be free to have his or her own pursuits in life on any matter, as long as it does not affect that same freedom for others. “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” (Mill 15) This quote from the first chapter of Mill’s On Liberty portrays his views that we should be free to have our own pursuits in life, so long as we do not take that freedom away from others. This can be easily related to the topic of opinions. Everyone has the freedom to have his or her own opinions in life, as long as those opinions do not hinder the same freedom for others.
One may wonder: How could one impede on another person’s efforts to have an opinion that is different? Mill believes to curtail one’s opinions is to affect one’s liberty of having a different opinion. Therefore, silencing others’ opinions is morally wrong. However, Nietzsche believes this silencing of others’ opinions does occur. This is done through corruption and oppression of those who go against the morals of those in power. This has been evident and relevant throughout history; it is even evident today.
Although Nietzsche agrees with the morals of Mill, he writes about things that go against what Mill would argue. An example of this would be master morality and slave morality brought up by Nietzsche. The two are considered opposites of each other. They classify the two different kinds of people in practicing freedom of opinion: those who agree with the noble men, and those who disagree with those noble men. There is a great deal of corruption that comes along with the idea of master-slave morality.
Master morality, as Nietzsche describes it, would be the opinions of the noble. The powerful people and their “followers” would have the opinions of the majority of the people. These are usually set forth by those in power. “The noble man honours the powerful man in himself, as well as the one who has power over himself and knows when to speak and when to remain silent, who practises severity and harshness on himself with relish and honours everything that is severe and harsh.”(Nietzsche 155) Here, it is made evident that the people who honor the noble men in and above them are in what Nietzsche calls master morality. These people are either in power and extremely confident in their power, or honor the ones in power above them. They are so confident that they condemn those in slave morality, the opposite of master morality.
People within slave morality are pessimistic and looked down upon by those mentioned earlier. Nietzsche uses words such as violated, unfree and oppressed to describe those in slave morality. Words like these are derogatory and cause the audience to understand how oppressed this group was. These are those who have outside opinions and express them. Nietzsche goes on to explain that the noble men use the fact that they determine what is “good” or “right” to distance themselves.
“In the first case, when it is the rulers who determine the concept ‘good’, it is the exalted, proud states of the soul that are perceived as conferring distinction and ordering rank. The noble man distances himself from men in whom the opposite of such elevated, proud states finds expression: he despises them.”(Nietzsche 155)
Here, Nietzsche makes his claim on the divide between those in slave morality and those in master morality. The fact of the matter is that these classifications are based on beliefs and opinions regarding what is deemed “good” by the noble men. Although everybody is free to have their own opinion, they are not really “free”. If someone goes against the flow of society with a contradictory opinion, he or she then suffers the consequence of being looked down upon and despised by the nobles of society. Therefore, being oppressed and violated based on a simple opinion shows how there is not freedom of opinion, according to Nietzsche.
It does make logical sense that an opinion can be refuted based on who the opinion came from. It makes more sense to believe an opinion that many believe as opposed to an opinion that only one, or very few, believe. “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (Mill)
Mill’s arguments clearly go against what Nietzsche wrote in The Genealogy of Morals. An important aspect of Mill’s arguments is the idea that truth can be covered by false opinions for time, so it is important to accept all opinions because the truth will persevere through all opposition. “The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it,” (Mill 30) Mill expresses here that he believes that truth will persevere through all opposition and will always reappear. That is how we find out what is true in this world. This goes against Nietzsche’s writings because if opinions are struck down altogether based on master morality, that could prevent the truth from reappearing. It is important to be open to all opinions as even though an opinion might have a small following behind it, it could be the truth.
It would be likely that a truth hidden for a long time would be looked down upon when rediscovered. It could be an opinion of one in slave morality, which is important as it would be shut down right away. Mill has an interesting input on an explanation with regard to why it is not right to curtail other’s opinions if they go against ours. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion,” (Mill 35) This quote exploits the fault in the master-slave morality model. The slave morality opinions are refuted because the opinion is contradictory to the opinions of the noble. It is not reasonable to refute an opinion based on class. If there is no way to prove a claim wrong with reason, there is no way to deny that opinion. Mill makes his argument on the freedom of opinion clear here. This is an opinion that contradicts the writings of Nietzsche.
Mill’s opinions and Nietzsche’s writings both make strong claims on how the freedom of opinion works. It is interesting how it is really up to the opinion of those involved. In an ideal world, there is a freedom to believe whatever you want with no repercussions. However, according to Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, this is not the case. The definition of “good” and “bad” is put in the hands of our leaders and nobles. Whoever is to go against those opinions is looked down upon and oppressed. It does not seem like a fair system while Mill’s belief on the freedom of opinion seems fair. The two cannot go hand in hand as they are proclaiming different situations. The fact of the matter is that as time goes on, people continue to curtail and shut down opinions based on who says what is good and what is not good. Nietzsche’s essay and Mill’s opinions are contradictory to each other, and it is up to society to choose which option is best, although that opinion can change over time.
Word Count: 1603