Questioning vs. Acceptance, Truth vs. Balance: A Comparison of East and West
Canyon Law

Western cultures have historically differed greatly from their far Eastern counterparts in several ways, be it in lifestyle, government, or worldview. These noticeable differences can be attributed to the West’s and East’s own unique philosophical backgrounds. While Western philosophers such as Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Socrates put large emphasis on the ideals of questioning authority in the search for truth, Eastern dogma—as reflected by Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism—assert very different, conflicting values focused on acceptance and obedience of superiors. Because of this disparity of thought process, East and West subscribe to very different schools of thought with regards to individualism, rationalism, and democracy. Jon Stuart Mill, in his book On Liberty, promotes the importance of constant debate of ideas. He argues that all opinions must be heard, whether they are from the majority or a minority of beliefs. He states that, “Judgment is given to men that they may use it… To prohibit what they think pernicious is not claiming from error, but fulfilling the duty incumbent on them, although fallible, of acting on their conscientious conviction. If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties underperformed.” (p. 18). In this passage, Mill argues that “judgment,” in this case the ability to question and criticize, is so necessary and vital to the point that it holds a place of importance above human “interests” and “duties.” Mill believes that constant reflection and assessment is so necessary that even if the majority opinion is true, it should nonetheless go through continual scrutiny so as to avoid a static society: “when the received opinions are true… it might be