Final answer:
Mill argues that the discussion of dissenting opinions is crucial as it leads to the truth, allows for the refinement of beliefs, and strengthens the truth by preventing views from becoming dogmatic, thus supporting individuality and personal liberty.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Stuart Mill believes discussion of dissenting opinions should not be suppressed because it contributes to the truth in three potential scenarios. When a dissenting opinion is entirely true, suppressing it would deny society the benefit of the truth. If it is partially true, it prevents the correction and improvement of our beliefs, as dissenting opinions may contain a portion of truth that can modify or enrich the majority or accepted view. Lastly, even if a dissenting opinion is entirely false, its discussion is still valuable as it strengthens the truth by challenging it, leading to a deeper understanding and preventing the accepted opinion from becoming dogmatic.
Mill’s support for freedom of speech and press is founded on his commitment to individuality and personal liberty, emphasizing that liberty should be protected even when individuals take actions that risk personal harm, provided they do not harm others (“the harm principle”). He also posits that people benefit more from experiencing and grappling with complex pleasures and truths than indulging in mere basic satisfaction.