In 1826, the Westminster Review, the organ of Benthamite Radicalism, published James Mill’s review of a book entitled Essays on the Formation and Publication of Opinions. The Essays were written by Samuel Bailey, a Radical who shared the commitment of Bentham, and the Mills, to rational political analysis. Bailey’s argument was, that since belief is not volitional, not a consequence of our choice or will, neither praise nor blame could be assigned to beliefs, nor could beliefs be ‘proper subjects of rewards and punishments.’ Yet Bailey also perceived that ‘the manner in which an inquiry is prosecuted’ can, and should be, open to criticism: ‘The labour and research which a man bestows, in order to determine any important question, and the impartiality with which he conducts the examination, may be entitled to our warmest applause. On the other hand, it is reprehensible for any one to be swayed in his conduct by interest or passion, to reject opportunities of information, to be designedly partial in examining evidence, to be deaf to whatever is urged on one side of a question, and lend all his attention to the other. These acts, though they may be totally ineffectual in accomplishing their aim, are all proper subjects of moral obloquy, and may be left to the indignation and contempt which they deserve; but they relate to the conduct of men as to the selection of those circumstances or ideas which they allow to operate on their minds, and are not to be confounded with the states or affections of the understanding, on which it is possible, after all, that they may not produce the slightest effect.’
Mill devoted much of his review to the consideration of evidence, and the right mode of dealing with it: the discussion characteristically draws out the grand moral consequences of the treatment of evidence, including its effects on human progress in the broadest sense. According to Mill, the right mode of dealing with evidence consists in two rules: fulness of collection; and equality of reception. But woefully, as he observes, evidence is seldom given our scrupulous attention; what we find, instead, is that people adopt opinions favourable to their interests, regardless of the weight of the evidence against them. Hence Mill mocks the slave owners of the West Indies, for their self-serving opinion of their racial superiority; he mocks lawyers for their exaggerated self-importance; and he warns of the injury that is done to society, when powerful classes adopt opinions without evidence. How, then, are we to overcome the power of our affections, and the disposition to adopt opinions favourable to our profession, or our sect, or our class? We do so, says Mill, by cultivating an affection toward, and an interest in, the truth: if we love the truth, and we love fairness, we will seldom err in our inquiries.
A number of useful passages by Mill are given below.
‘There are two propositions, therefore, of the greatest certainty, and the greatest importance.
‘The first is this, that, as the mind is passive in belief, and the will … has nothing at all to do with it, neither merit nor demerit can ever be ascribed to belief, without the utmost confusion of ideas, and the risk of a deplorable train of the most immoral consequences.
‘The second is that, as the mind is not passive in what it does relating to evidence, but has all the activity which is implied in its most voluntary exertions, merit or demerit may be justly ascribed to it.
‘On his mode of dealing with evidence, the good or evil application of the powers of the man, in other words, the greatest possible degree either of virtue or of vice, almost wholly depends.
‘The evidence of this proposition is short and conclusive. The outward acts of the man follow the inward acts of the will; the acts of the will follow the last determinations of the understanding; the determinations of the understanding follow the evidence present to the mind. The outward acts of the man, therefore, are all precisely such as the evidence which he has in his contemplation determines them to be.
‘Proper dealing with evidence consists of two things. First, the full collection of it: secondly, the equal reception of it.
‘With regard to the first, it is knowledge that is concerned. With regard to the second, it is fairness.’
‘Fulness of Collection.—1. When a man gives himself no concern about evidence, he remains in voluntary ignorance. The degree of criminality which is involved in this, admits of all degrees, according to the nature of the case. Where it is of little importance, whether a man is or is not ignorant, very little blame can attach to his ignorance; where it would be impossible for him to acquire knowledge, however important, without neglecting it where it is still of greater importance, ignorance may deserve praise rather than blame. There are cases, however, in which voluntary ignorance implies the greatest wickedness; and a habit of voluntary ignorance, a habit, to a certain degree predominant, of indifference to evidence on important points, implies one of the most odious and disgusting states of intellectual and moral depravity.
‘Equality of Reception.—2. The criminality of unfairness, also, of course admits of degrees, according to the less or greater importance of the occasion on which it is incurred. The nature of the offence, in a general way, is sufficiently suggested by the name. It consists in leaning too much to one side. The opposite virtue consists in having no leaning to either side.
‘What is included in this? Two things are included. The first is, that we have no affection to one side more than the other. The second is, that we bestow equal attention upon the evidence on both sides.
‘1. First, it is required that we have no affection to the one side more than the other. When there is an affection to the one side, a wish that the truth should be found on that side, a wish that it should not be found on the other, the weaker evidence on the favourite side produces more impression, than the stronger evidence on the other. By what delusive process of the mind this unhappy effect is produced, we shall by and by explore. At present we have to do with the certainty of the fact, and the extent of its influence.
‘A man must have looked abroad upon the world to very little purpose, who has not observed how invariably every class of men have provided themselves with a set of opinions, grounded upon the feelings connected with their own interests, and not upon the evidentials of the case. The aristocratical class have opinions of a superiority inherent in themselves; and inferiority inherent in the other classes. Wherein consists the pride of birth? Whence arises the belief of something noble or ignoble in the blood, with all the practical feelings which result from it, and all the great consequences on life of which such feelings are the proximate cause?
‘Whence are derived that remarkable class of opinions which are held by the white masters respecting their black slaves, in the West Indies, and in America? The opinion of the utter degradation of the sable race; the opinion of such a superiority in the fair race, that any the smallest tinge in the blood of an individual, whatever his worth, whatever even his riches, makes him unfit to associate with one whose veins contain the European liquid in elevating, ennobling purity?
‘How difficult is it to find a man who does not over estimate the importance of the particular faculty in which he excels? Look at the tribe of lawyers, the class who hire their tongues as readily to promote what is iniquitous and cruel, as what is just and humane. Their self-importance rises to the ridiculous: were it not for them, the race of men, they tell us, could hardly exist.’
… ‘Practically speaking, therefore, it is never safe to come to the examination of any question, without a strict examination of the affections. When we proceed to the investigation of any question, the first thing required is, a process of self-examination. Have I any affection on either side? If not, I may safely proceed to ascertain and weigh the evidentials on both sides. If, however, the result of the self-examination is, that I have an affection on the one side, and none on the other, what must I do? The proper plan would be, if it could be done, to abolish the affection on that side; and so come to the study of the question free from affection on either side; or, if this could not be done, to raise, if it were possible, an equal affection on the other side. If it were the question for a fond mother to decide, whether her own or another child were the most amiable, it would be necessary, for a fair decision, either that she should divest herself, for the time, of her peculiar affection to the one side, or put on an equal affection for the other. This generally is impossible; and then, there is only one other resource, that of making an allowance for the efficacy of the affection. As evidence which favours an affection, of equal force with evidence which makes against it, appears of greater force to the mind which is under the influence of the affection, it is necessary to such a mind, if it would be fair, to allow greater weight to the evidence opposite to the affection than it seems to have, and less to that which favours it. Thus, if it appears that the evidence which makes against the affection, and that which makes in its favour, are of equal force, we ought to conclude that the evidence which makes against it is the stronger. If a fond mother sees another child which she thinks equally admirable with her own, she may be very sure that it is better.’
… ‘2. In fair dealing with evidence, the next thing implied is, that equal evidence, on the different sides, should be treated as equal, that is, have equal effects. This second condition of fair dealing is substantially included in the first; though for facilitating conception, we have thought it expedient to treat of them as two separate things.
‘It is only necessary to remind the reader of the share which attention has in the effect which is produced by evidence. If evidence is not attended to, it is the same thing as if it did not exist. If a very slight degree of attention, a degree just bordering upon no attention at all, is bestowed upon an article of evidence, the impression produced must be nearly the same as none at all. And if we reflect upon each degree of attention from the weakest to the strongest, we shall be easily convinced that the effect of the evidence must follow the degree of attention.
‘The point which we desire to illustrate becomes, therefore, exceedingly distinct. Suppose that there is a certain quantity of evidence on each of the two sides of a certain question; but that strong attention is bestowed upon the evidence on the one side, the slightest attention only allowed to that on the other, every body knows the consequence. Let the evidence which is slighted be to almost any degree the strongest in its own nature, that is, calculated, if equal attention were bestowed upon it, to produce the strongest effect, it will nevertheless produce the weakest; and the balance of proof will, contrary to all just appreciation, appear to be on the other side.’
… ‘To say that interest has a great share in fixing the attention upon the evidence on one side, rather than the other, is, in fact, but saying that the affections do so; since what are the affections, if not the feeling of a particular interest? Yet it is necessary to mention interest separately, as in the sense in which it is here used, it is a very remarkable modification of affection. We are said to feel an interest in a thing, when it is a remote cause of our pains or pleasures. We say we have an affection for what is a proximate cause.’
‘Now, then, what is the process, not difficult to conceive, however rarely practised, which takes place, when the mind makes an exertion, as we phrase it, to counteract those misguiding influences; and, in spite of them, bestows an equal attention on the evidence on both sides? Of course it does so, because it has a motive. It loves truth, it loves fairness, and it makes to itself a greater interest in the pursuit of truth, and practice of fairness, than any thing which it would gain by the violation of them. As a motive is nothing but another name for an interest, a name for an interest, connoting the view which at the instant is taken of it by the mind, it is easy to see what happens. When the mind bestows an equal attention upon the evidence on both sides of a question, by that victory over affection and interest, which is one of the noblest exertions of virtue, because it is the source from which almost every laudable action proceeds, it does so by creating to itself a counteracting interest; the interest of truth and fairness. This is the tutelary principle. This is the safeguard of virtue. If a man loves truth and fairness more than he loves either side, he will inquire and judge virtuously. If he loves either side better than he loves truth truth and fairness, he is ready to decide dishonestly, whether he himself is aware of it, or not.’
… ‘This habit of forming opinions, and acting upon them without evidence, is one of the most immoral habits of the mind. Only observe what it imports. As our opinions are the fathers of our actions, to be indifferent about the evidence of our opinions is to be indifferent about the consequences of our actions. But the consequences of our actions are the good and evil of our fellow-creatures. The habit of the neglect of evidence, therefore, is the habit of disregarding the good and evil of our fellow-creatures. It is the habit of hard-heartedness, and cruelty, on the largest scale, and rooted in the deepest part of the mind. This habit is the foundation of most of what is vicious and degraded in human character. The habit of disregarding the evidence of our opinions, with the habit necessarily involved, of disregarding the consequences to our fellow-creatures, of the actions founded upon those opinions, are the elements of a character, in which the general temptations to vice operate without any counteracting motive; and as such a man is essentially without virtue, so it must be by a rare concurrence of accidents, if he is not deep in vice.
‘Seeing the malignant nature of this habit, it is a melancholy reflection, that it is the general habit of mankind, and of none more than of our dear countrymen. How rare is it to meet with a man, who has almost ever concerned himself about evidence; who has not adopted opinions, as he has adopted words, solely because they were used by other people? This is a dreadful vice of education. One of the grand objects of education should be, to generate a constant and anxious concern about evidence; to accustom the mind to run immediately from the idea of the opinion to the idea of its evidence, and to feel dissatisfaction till it is known that the evidence has been all before the mind, and fairly weighed. When the case is directly the reverse, when the habit is almost universal, of stopping at the opinion, without going on to a thought of the evidence, without an association of any the smallest feeling of dissatisfaction with an opinion the evidence of which has not been explored, we may be perfectly sure that education in that country is in the wrong hands, and that it is nearly in its most deplorable state.
‘The effects are dreadful. How, but for the habit, almost general, of neglecting and disregarding evidence, could the progress of mankind in improvement be so very slow? How else could errors, of the grossest as well as most pernicious kind, be propagated, and the abominable actions which are grounded upon them, be repeated, from generation to generation? How could institutions, at variance with the interests of the community, which are a mockery of human nature, and act as a pestilential atmosphere upon the race, hold their endless existence, if the human mind was not ruined by the habit of adopting opinions, without evidence?
‘If such are the deplorable consequences of the vile habit of neglecting evidence, the consequences of the opposite habit, of being on the alert for evidence, of never yielding assent without having it, are of the most salutary kind. Strength and soundness of mind are so essentially connected with it, that they cannot exist without it. How can there be strength or soundness of mind, without the habits on which they depend? Virtue of every kind springs readily from this soil, and can be planted in no other. The regard to evidence, as we have said before, implies regard to the good and evil of mankind. Regard to evidence, and the strength of mind, of which it is the foundation, necessarily lead to the discovery of error, and the discredit of institutions not useful but hurtful to mankind. What a debt of gratitude should we therefore owe to an education which would implant this habit; what detestation do we owe to an education which implants the opposite!
‘Such are the opposite habits, the habit of virtue, and the habit of vice, in regard to the search and collection of evidence. The habits of equal and partial affection come next for consideration.
‘On this subject it is not necessary we should bestow many words. All the benefit of having evidence is lost, if it comes into a mind prepared to make a bad use of it. Of course, all the evil consequences which attach to the negligence of evidence, attach to the habit of partial affection, and something more. The habit of attaching one’s self to one side of a question, is a habit of misjudgment. This implies mental imbecility. The affection which is felt for one side of a question, is an affection grounded upon those narrow and personal considerations, which are called selfish, in the immoral and hateful sense of the word; because the interests of truth and fairness include every thing that is large and generous; the habit, therefore, of partial affection to one side of a question, is a habit of confirmed selfishness and immorality. By the habit of believing whatever a man wishes to believe, he becomes, in proportion to the strength of the habit, a bad neighbour, a bad trustee, a bad politician, a bad judge, a shameless advocate. A man whose intellect is always at the command of his sinister interest, is a man whose conscience is at the command of it.
‘The sphere in which this habit operates the most mischievously is that of the opinions favourable to the interests of the powerful classes of the community, and hostile to those of the community at large. Individuals of the power classes, like other individuals, feel attachment to their own side of every question, and when that propensity is not corrected by a good education, but confirmed into a habit, and even erected into a principle, by a bad education, as it is in this country, the consequences are, what we see, an utter incapacity, almost universal, among the individuals of whom the leading classes are composed, of fair reasoning on all the points wherein the interests of the community are concerned. When to this is joined the habit, in the body of the people, of inattention to evidence, of taking opinions upon trust, and taking upon trust the opinions chiefly of those same leading classes, we see how naturally all the mischievous institutions in the world, and all the mischievous opinions which yield them support, derive their hateful durability from habits of misconduct in relation to evidence.’
Notes in the Margins of the Days 