We are all chairs. This statement encourages people to use empirical evidence to either reject or accept this claim. Mill says, “first: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true” (Mill 9). This unusual statement creates a moment to check and see that we are not chairs. Once we do check, we are able to confirm with greater clarity that we are not chairs. Otherwise, as Mill puts it, “to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty” (Mill 9). Unless we at least check to make sure that we are not chairs, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that the claim is false. This concept raises an interesting question to society; is absolute certainty an attainable ambition? If you were to ask Mill that question, he would tell you that there is no such thing. However, “there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life” (Mill 10). This idea suggests that acceptance of a claim in society is possible, only if you presume that the claim is right. Furthermore, you may only presume a claim to hold truth if your opinion is open to question, if anyone is free to disprove your claim, and if no one does. In addition to this claim tempting us to take a moment to check if we are chairs, it also gives us an opportunity for further reflection on human nature. As Mill says, “it is the duty of governments, and of individuals, to form the truest opinions they can; to form them carefully, and never impose them upon others unless they are quite sure of being right” (Mill 10). When people think they are absolutely sure about something, it stunts progressive thinking and prevents the human race from confirming claims with greater evidence. Embracing a question of a general opinion may help us arrive at more insight or knowledge because this wrong idea has triggered us to go looking. It is easy and lazy to accept a claim simply because the majority of society believes it holds truth. We should demand extensive evidence and reasoning before we presume an idea is right, and even then we should still be open to question. In some cases, questioning an idea will help someone correct their wrong idea. Mill says that “very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgement, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious” (Mill 11). Disproving these unsupported claims is tremendously helpful in increasing our understanding of life. It is important that we continue to question and challenge ideas so that we can decrease the amount of people in the world who are misinformed. Eating our pets is good. Rather than encouraging people to use empirical evidence, as the first statement did, this statement urges people to use moral evidence to reject or accept this bizarre claim. Mill says, “the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong” (Mill 7). Reading this statement creates an opportunity to ask ourselves whether or not we currently are mistaken in our belief. In order to develop a reasonable argument for our position on this topic, there are a few questions that should be considered. One question would be, do animals have moral rights? Seeing that animals are living individuals of this world, it is likely that Mill would say that they do have moral rights. If we can agree that animals indeed have moral rights, then the next question we should ask ourselves would be, do human beings have moral obligations to animals. Based on the ideas expressed in the reading, it seems clear that Mill believes that all living individuals deserve an opportunity to obtain liberty and freedom, as long as what those individuals do does not harm others. Now, if we can agree that eating our pets is indeed quite harmful to them as individuals, we have improved our moral evidence as to why this claim is wrong. “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it” (Mill 8). Mill is saying that if we harm others on our pursuit of freedom, then we do not deserve to be free at all. Therefore, we may presume that not only do animals have moral rights, but we as human beings have moral obligations to not interfere with the well being of animals. Additionally, if someone makes believes the claim,“eating our pets is good”, we should consider what the state of this persons mental health is. It would be appropriate to ask, what is troubling this person to believe such a thing? Is this person some kind of psychopath? If the person is in fact a psychopath then this would lead to improved moral evidence as to why this claim is wrong. This person would not be thinking in a clear or reasonable manor and as a result, we could attribute the claim to their lack of moral understanding. In our never-ending pursuit for certainty, it is important that we keep three key ideas in mind. Firstly, if any opinion is silenced, then we are assuming that we are infallible. Secondly, although a person’s opinion may be false, it is rare that the general opinion of a subject contains the whole truth. The only way that we can find the whole truth is if the general opinion is challenged and inspires us to look deeper. Thirdly, even if the general opinion is not only true, but is actually the whole truth, it is the ability to prevail amongst opposing opinions that solidifies the truth.