Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren once said: “Simple non- Orthodoxy or simple dissent from prevailing norms should not be condemned. The absence of such dissent these voices would be a symptom of a serious illness in our society. » This message combined with the government position of its speaker reveals the conviction that questioning the political system benefits humanity as a whole. Although Plato and John Stuart Mill recognize the nature and importance of dissent in philosophical debate, they disagree about its implementation within a political system. Through Plato's Crito, dissent is seen as a harm to society because the citizen has an obligation to maintain political order, rather than destroying it by disobeying the laws. Deliberately acting against this system amounts to weakening its power and its organization, thus deteriorating the cohesion of society. Mill, however, believes that the ideal forum for dissent is the political system, because politics is the collaboration of individual ideas. To completely ignore an opinion is to weaken the system, in his eyes. With these fundamentally similar definitions of dissent applied in entirely different ways, the dilemma between political and personal obligation is revealed in the writings of Plato and Mill. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Throughout the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Plato reveals his position regarding the importance of dissent within a healthy society. The Platonic view of dissent, as revealed by this work, is an expression of individuality within a society that preaches conformism. Although dissent is a healthy form of self-expression, there are limits to the extent to which it can be beneficially pursued. Plato views opposition as the crux of philosophical debate because it forces people to look beyond their perceptions and welcome foreign concepts. Through the expansion of linear thinking, people are able to view life and society in different ways. Politically, however, there must be established laws that all citizens are expected to follow. Without respect for this doctrine, a State “in which the decisions of law have no power but are annulled and trampled upon by individuals” cannot exist and “not be overthrown”. (Plato 54) Because humanity is social by nature, there is no hope of human survival in an apolitical world. Socrates understands that Athenian civilization is based on the obedience of all citizens. In an attempt to maintain this structure, Socrates sacrifices his ability to escape execution because he is unable to justify "an attempt to escape without the consent of the Athenians" (Plato 53). Without this consent, Socrates is obliged, by his duty to his country, to follow through on his sentence. Socrates places importance on the laws of social order and therefore refrains from total dissension. In summary, although Socrates strongly believes in the importance of philosophical dissent, he recognizes the political limit and decides to act with social propriety. Throughout Mill's discussion of freedom of speech in his On Liberty, he reveals his opinion on the subject. He perceives dissent as the expression of original ideas in a society diluted in blind acceptance. He describes his oppositional value both philosophically and politically by examining the principles of an oppositional lifesilent. To silence dissent is to assume that existing laws have a sense of infallibility. No individual can ever claim to have achieved a complete understanding of the world and therefore cannot determine what is true and what is false. People are fallible by nature and therefore must allow for changes within their political systems. Additionally, stifling dissent hinders the intellectual process because people believe a certain value without analyzing its nature. Furthermore, silencing dissent reduces truth to prejudice. Opposition forces people to deeply analyze their beliefs, thereby reinforcing or abolishing these principles. Dissent, in essence, challenges perceptions of normality by presenting a “clearer perception and more vivid impression of the truth.” (Mill 210) These challenges, in turn, force people to reconsider their positions on a range of issues because any belief "unless it is, and is indeed, vigorously and sincerely challenged" is "robbed of its vital effect” (Mill 210). ) In this sense, dissent is closely linked to government in Mill's eyes because even "the best government has no more title than the worst." (Mill 209) Silencing the minority in favor of maintaining public opinion is just as (if not more) offensive as a government acting against the will of the public. Politics is the ideal forum for disagreement because it provides the opportunity to refine old laws and generate new ones. Contesting a political system means questioning the ways of society and trying to improve its policies. Government is capable of doing great good and great evil. The outcome depends on the ability of citizens to change policies that go against human nature. Therefore, according to Mill, dissent is essential to philosophical and political institutions. From my Americanized perspective, I find a lot of truth in both arguments, but I am more inclined to side with Mill in favor of dissent in everyday political life. Within the democracy of the United States of America, citizens have both the right and obligation to challenge the sometimes narrow and outdated laws that govern such a diverse population. Without dissent, I believe we, as citizens, risk becoming complacent in our current society. Complacency is a state to be avoided because it evokes a notion of blind acceptance of the will of the majority. Personally, I fear and abhor the will of the majority in many situations and am not afraid to express my opinion. The majority are often misinformed and unwilling to admit it. Sacrificing one's opinions and beliefs to perpetuate the structure of society seems like a weak attempt to avoid conflict. I believe that some situations call for a change in society's policies rather than a change in individual beliefs. Certainly, there will be times when the individual is wrong, but they should always be given the opportunity to evaluate their opinion fairly rather than automatically silencing it. As author Tryon Edwards once said, “He who never changes, never corrects his mistakes, and will never be wiser tomorrow than he is today.” If society never re-evaluates its policies, the standard of living will become static and eventually become obsolete. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with Mill's belief that dissent should be an integral part of philosophical and political debate. Although Mill and Plato disagree on the specific applications of dissent, they both agree that it is essential to the development of human beings in the world. a certain 2003