Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, "Mere heterodoxy or dissent from prevailing norms need not be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of serious illness in our society." This message, combined with its spokesperson's governmental position, reveals the belief that challenging the political system benefits humanity as a whole. Although both Plato and John Stuart Mill recognize the nature and importance of dissent in a philosophical discussion, they disagree about its implementation within a political system. Through Plato's Crito, dissent is perceived as harmful to society because a citizen has an obligation to maintain political order, rather than destroy it by disobeying the laws. To intentionally act in conflict with that system is to weaken its power and 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 completely different ways, the dilemma between political and personal obligation is discovered in the writings of Plato and Mill. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayDuring the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Plato reveals his position regarding the importance of dissent within a healthy society. Plato's perception of dissent, as revealed by this work, is an expression of individuality within a society that preaches conformity. While dissent is a healthy form of self-expression, there are limits to the extent to which it can be pursued beneficially. Plato sees opposition as the crux of philosophical debate because it forces people to look beyond their own perceptions and embrace foreign concepts. Through the expansion of linear thinking, people are able to see life and society in different ways. Politically, however, laws must be established that all citizens are expected to abide by. Without observance of this doctrine, a state "in which the decisions of the law have no power but are cast aside and trampled upon by individuals" cannot subsist and "not be overthrown." (Plato 54) Since humanity is social by nature, there is no hope for man's survival in an apolitical world. Socrates understands that Athenian civilization is based on the obedience of all citizens. In an attempt to maintain that structure, Socrates sacrifices his opportunity to escape execution because he is unable to justify "attempting to escape without the consent of the Athenians" (Plato 53). Without such consent, Socrates is obligated by his duty to his country to carry out the sentence. Socrates attributes value to the laws of the social order and therefore abstains from total dissent. In summary, while Socrates strongly believes in the importance of philosophical dissent, he recognizes its political limit and decides to act with social correctness. In the course of Mill's discussion of free speech in his On Liberty, Mill 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 a life of silent opposition. Silencing dissent means assuming that the laws in place have a sense of infallibility. No individual will ever be able to claim tohaving achieved complete understanding of the world and cannot, therefore, determine what is true and what is false. People are fallible by nature and must therefore allow for change within their political systems. Furthermore, repressing dissent hinders the intellectual process because people believe some value without analyzing its nature. Furthermore, silencing dissent reduces truth to prejudice. Opposition forces people to deeply analyze their beliefs, thereby strengthening or abolishing those principles. Dissent, in essence, challenges the perception 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 topics because any belief "unless it can stand to be, and in fact is, vigorously and seriously contested" is "private of its vital effect" (Mill 210) ) In this sense, in Mill's eyes, dissent is closely linked to government because even the "best government has no more title than the worst". (Mill 209) Silencing the minority in favor of public support is just as offensive (if not more so) as a government acting against the will of the public. Politics is the ideal forum for disagreement because it offers the opportunity to refine old laws and generate new ones. Challenging a political system means questioning the ways of society and attempting to improve its policies. Government is capable of great good and great evil. The outcome depends on the ability of its citizens to change policies that work against human nature. Thus, in Mill's perception, dissent is central to both philosophical and political institutions. From my Americanized perspective, I find much truth in both arguments, but I am more inclined to side with Mill's defense of dissent in everyday political life. Within the democracy of the United States of America, citizens have both the right and the duty to challenge the sometimes narrow and antiquated laws that govern such a diverse population. Without dissent, I believe we as citizens are in danger of becoming complacent in our current society. Complacency is a state to avoid because it evokes a concept of blind acceptance of the will of the majority. I personally fear and loathe the will of the majority in many situations and am not afraid to express my opinion. The majority is often misinformed and is unwilling to admit it. Sacrificing one's opinions and beliefs to perpetuate the structure of society seems like a feeble attempt to avoid conflict. I believe that some situations require a change in society's policies rather than a change in individual beliefs. Granted that there will be times when the individual is wrong, there must still be the opportunity to evaluate that opinion fairly rather than have it automatically silenced. 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 reevaluates its policies, living standards will become static and eventually outmoded. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with Mill's belief that dissent should be an integral aspect of both philosophical and political debate. Although Mill and Plato disagree on the specific applications of dissent, they both agree that it is fundamental to the development of human beings in some form. Although Plato firmly believes in the sustenance of the political institution, he realizes that dissent is central to its foundation. However, it is felt 2003