John Stuart Mill – 1<\/p>\n
John Stuart Mill – On Liberty<\/p>\n
Chapter One – Introduction<\/p>\n
The scope of this essay is Civil, or Social Liberty.<\/p>\n
He writes that this essay will look at what kind of power society can legitimately exert over the individual.<\/p>\n
In ancient Greece, Rome and England, liberty implied “protection against the tyranny of political rulers,” and rulers and subjects were often thought to have a necessarily antagonistic relationship.<\/p>\n
Patriots tried to limit the leader’s power in two ways:<\/p>\n
They gained immunities called “political liberties or rights.” The leader was thought to have a duty to respect these immunities, and there was a right of rebellion if these rights and liberties were infringed.<\/p>\n
Constitutional checks developed, under which the community or their representatives gained some power of consent over important acts of governance.<\/p>\n
Mill writes that eventually men progressed to a point where they wanted their leaders to be their servants, and to reflect their interests and will<\/p>\n
However, when an actual democratic republic developed (The United States), it was realized that the people don’t rule themselves.<\/p>\n
Rather, the people with power exercise it over those without power. In particular, a majority may consciously try to oppress a minority.<\/p>\n
Mill, however, argues that society can also tyrannize without using political means. Rather, the power of public opinion can be more stifling to individuality and dissent than any law could be. Thus, he writes that there must also be protection for people against the prevailing public opinions, and the tendency of society to impose its values on others.<\/p>\n
He writes that he will argue that the only time individuals or society as a whole can interfere with individual liberty is for self-protection<\/p>\n
Mill states that the argument that a certain law or public opinion might be for an individual’s own good or welfare does not suffice to justify that law or public opinion as a coercive force; coercion by the many toward the individual is only acceptable when an individual poses a threat to others.<\/p>\n
It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him. Mill writes, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.<\/p>\n
Mill notes that the right of liberty does not apply to children, or to “backward” societies. It is only when people are capable of learning from discussion that liberty holds; otherwise the people must be taken care of.<\/p>\n
Chapter Two \u2013 Liberty of Thought and Discussion<\/p>\n
Mill turns to the issue of whether people, either through their government or on their own, should be allowed to coerce or limit anyone else’s expression of opinion.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBut the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it<\/p>\n
Two Arguments for Why Mankind is Harmed<\/p>\n
Popular opinion might be wrong and we lose out from not examining other ideas.<\/p>\n
Popular opinion might be right but we become complacent about it<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
First Argument<\/p>\n
Popular opinion might be wrong and we lose out from not examining other ideas.<\/p>\n
First Criticism<\/p>\n
Even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act on their “conscientious conviction.”<\/p>\n
When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind.<\/p>\n
First Response<\/p>\n
Since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments<\/p>\n
Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.<\/p>\n
The only way that a person can be confident that he is right is if there is complete liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs<\/p>\n
Humans have the capacity to correct their mistakes, but only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain open to criticism<\/p>\n
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs.<\/p>\n
Second Criticism<\/p>\n
Governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well-being of society<\/p>\n
Only “bad” men would try to undermine these beliefs<\/p>\n
Second Response<\/p>\n
This argument still relies on an assumption of infallibility–the usefulness of an opinion is still something up for debate, and it still requires discussion.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the truth of a belief is integral to whether it is desirable for it to be believed.<\/p>\n
The assumption of infallibility about a certain question implies that one not only feels very sure about a belief, but also includes the attempt to try to decide that question for other people<\/p>\n
Socrates and Jesus were both put to death for speaking out against the convention of the day and the government of their time.<\/p>\n
Third Criticism<\/p>\n
Truth may be justifiably persecuted, because persecution is something that truth should have to face, and it will always survive<\/p>\n
Third Response<\/p>\n
Mill replies that such a sentiment is harshly unfair to those who actually are persecuted for holding true ideas. <\/p>\n
By discovering something true, these people have performed a great service to humanity. <\/p>\n
Supporting the persecution of such people suggests that their contributions are not truly being valued. <\/p>\n
Mill also contends that it is wrong to assume that “truth always triumphs over persecution.” It may take centuries for truth to reemerge after it is suppressed<\/p>\n
Example \u2013 The Reformation<\/p>\n
Fourth Criticism<\/p>\n
Since we do not actually put dissenters to death any more, no true opinion will ever be extinguished<\/p>\n
Fourth Response<\/p>\n
Mill replies that legal persecution for opinions is still significant in society, for example in the case of blasphemy or atheism. <\/p>\n
There is also no guarantee, given general public opinion that more extreme forms of legal persecution will not reemerge. In addition, there continues to be social intolerance of dissent. <\/p>\n
Mill argues that societal intolerance causes people to hide their views, and stifles intellectualism and independent thought. <\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Second Argument<\/p>\n
Even if the popular opinion is true, if it is not debated it will become “dead dogma.”<\/p>\n
If truth is simply held as a prejudice, then people will not fully understand it, and will not understand how to refute objections to it. Dissent, even if it is false, keeps alive the truth against which it dissents.<\/p>\n
First Criticism<\/p>\n
One could say that people should be taught the grounds for their opinions, and that having been taught these grounds, they do not then merely hold prejudices but really understand the basis of their opinions<\/p>\n
It works for mathematical proofs<\/p>\n
First Response<\/p>\n
In cases where differing opinions are possible, understanding the truth requires dispelling arguments to the contrary. If a person cannot refute objections, then he cannot properly be said to understand his own opinion.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, he must hear these objections from people who actually believe them, because it is only these people who can show the full force of the arguments.<\/p>\n
Responding to objections is so important that if no dissenters exist, it is necessary to imagine them, and to come up with the most persuasive arguments that they could make<\/p>\n
Second Criticism<\/p>\n
It is not necessary for mankind in general to be familiar with potential objections to their beliefs, but only for philosophers or theologians to be thus aware<\/p>\n
Second Response<\/p>\n
Mill replies that this objection does not weaken his argument for free discussion, because dissenters still must be given a voice with which to object to opinions.<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Third Argument<\/p>\n
He writes that if a true opinion is not debated, the meaning of the opinion itself may be lost.<\/p>\n
Example: Christian beliefs. People profess them but do not understand them because they are never challenged.<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Fourth Argument<\/p>\n
In the case of conflicting doctrines, perhaps the most common case is that instead of one being true and one false, the truth is somewhere between them.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, it is not law’s place to restrict discussion in this way; public opinion must look at individual cases, and hold both sides to the same standard.<\/p>\n
Chapter Three \u2013 Of Individuality, as one of the elements of Well-Being<\/p>\n
Should people be allowed to act on their opinions?<\/p>\n
Actions warrant more restrictions than beliefs.<\/p>\n
However, many of the reasons for respecting different opinions also apply to respecting actions. Since humans are fallible, different “experiments of living” are valuable. The expression of individuality is essential for individual and social progress.<\/p>\n
Individuality is essential to the cultivation of the self.<\/p>\n
A basic problem that Mill sees with society is that individual spontaneity is not respected as having any good in itself, and is not seen as essential to well-being. <\/p>\n
Rather, the majority thinks that its ways should be good enough for everybody. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they now are (for it is they who make them what they are), cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mill argues that while people should be trained as children in the accumulated knowledge of human experience, they should also have the freedom as adults to interpret that experience as they see fit. <\/p>\n
He places great moral emphasis on the process of making choices, and not simply accepting customs without questions: only people who make choices are using all of their human faculties.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe who does anything because it is the custom makes no choice. He gains no practice either in discerning or in desiring what is est. The mental and moral, like the muscular powers, are improved only be being used. The faculties are called into no exercise by doing a thing merely because others do it, no more than by believing a thing only because others believe it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mill then links the desires and impulses reflected in individuality with the development of character: “One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has character.”<\/p>\n
Mill writes that in early stages of society, it is possible that there could be too much individuality. However, the danger now is rather the stifling of desires and impulses. He says that people become more valuable to themselves and also more able to be valuable to others when they develop their individuality. <\/p>\n
Individuality is valuable because people might learn something from the nonconformists. Dissenters may discover new goods, and keep alive existing goods. <\/p>\n
While genius is rare, it is also true that “Genius can only breathe free in an\u00a0atmosphere\u00a0of freedom.”<\/p>\n
Unoriginal people tend to not see the value of originality, and tend to shun genius for mediocrity. <\/p>\n
There is no one pattern for how to best live life. <\/p>\n
If a person is sufficiently developed, then his choices for how to live life are best precisely because they are his own. <\/p>\n
People require different atmospheres in order to develop and reach their potentials, and a healthy society must make it possible for people to follow more than one pattern.<\/p>\n
Liberty and individuality are essential to individual and social progress. Seeing people’s dissimilarities is key in learning about one’s own weaknesses. <\/p>\n
Diversity also lets us see the potential of combining the positive traits of different people. Forced conformity, in contrast, keeps people from learning from each other. <\/p>\n
Chapter Four – Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual<\/p>\n
So, what authority does society have over the individual?<\/p>\n
Society and the individual should each receive control over that part of human life that it is particularly interested in.<\/p>\n
While rejecting the idea of a social contract, Mill writes that since people receive the protection of society, they owe certain conduct in return.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThough society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
Individuals must not injure those interests of other people that should be considered rights. Individuals must fairly share the burden of defending society and its members from injury.<\/p>\n
Finally, individuals may be censured by opinion, though not by law, for harming others while not violating their rights.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, society does not have an interest in those aspects of life that affect no one but the person acting, or only affects people by their consent.<\/p>\n
People should encourage others to make full use of their faculties. They should not, however, try to keep a person from doing with his life what he wishes<\/p>\n
\u201cConsiderations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others: but he himself is the final judge.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mill says that he does not mean that people should not be allowed to point out what they see as faults in other people’s behavior. In addition, he is not proscribing avoiding a person or warning others about that person.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, People\u00a0do not have the right to express moral reprobation, and they should not try to make the person uncomfortable. He should not be treated with anger or resentment or seen as an enemy if he engages in unpopular activities that only affect himself.<\/p>\n
Criticism<\/p>\n
No human is fully isolated, and actions can create bad examples, hurt those who depend on the person and diminish community resources. <\/p>\n
Furthermore, why can’t society interfere on behalf of mature people incapable of “self- government?”<\/p>\n
Response<\/p>\n
Mill replies that he agrees that some behavior may affect the “sympathies” and interests of others, and hurt the well-being of society at large. <\/p>\n
When an action violates a person’s obligations then it does not only affect himself, and he can be properly face moral reprobation for breaking those obligations. Mill forwards the example of a person who is unable to pay debts because of extravagant living<\/p>\n
In contrast, if an action only indirectly affects society without violating any fixed obligation, then “the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom.”<\/p>\n
And besides, society has a perfect opportunity to teach people to avoid these kinds of imprudent behaviors.<\/p>\n
Society has a person’s entire childhood to nurture values; if the person fails to accept those values, or remains immature, it is society’s own fault. No further influence is necessary<\/p>\n
Also, if an action is harmful then people will see its negative effects, and this should be enough of an example to them of why they should not act in such a way.<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Mill says the strongest argument against interference, though, is that when society does interfere, it will likely do so wrongly.<\/p>\n
If people want to be able to impose their morality, they must be willing to accept the imposition by others.<\/p>\n
Mill complains about unjust violations of freedom such as the banning of alcohol, the banning of recreation on the Sabbath, and the persecution of Mormons for polygamy. People can preach against such activities, and try to change people’s minds, but they should not be coercive.<\/p>\n
Chapter Five \u2013 Applications<\/p>\n
Mill observes, though, that sometimes when an action causes harm to others, such as when a person succeeds in a competitive job market, the general social good is positive, and there is no right to punish people for the harm caused. Similarly, free trade is allowed because of its socially beneficial effects.<\/p>\n
Mill first looks at how liberty relates to society’s right to guard against crimes and accidents. Mill says that the police must be careful not to restrict things that might only potentially be done for evil, and must respect people’s right to potentially harm themselves. <\/p>\n
For example, a person should be warned about the danger of crossing an unstable bridge, but should not be forcibly prevented from crossing if he understands the risks. In the case of a poison that could be potentially used for a crime, there should be regulations such as taking down the name and address of the purchaser, but the poison should not be banned. Mill also observes that the right to prevent crimes makes it legitimate to limit conduct in the interest of prevention. For example, a person who becomes violent when drunk could be compelled not to drink. He also mentions that public violations of “decency” are an affront to others, and can therefore be restricted.<\/p>\n
Mill then turns to the issue of whether people should be free to “counsel or instigate” others to act in a particular way. He says that they should, because of the importance of exchanging opinions. <\/p>\n
A more complicated situation is when someone profits from acting against the public good, such as in owning a gambling house. On the one hand, society does not have the right to keep a person from trying to persuade people to do something bad. On the other hand, Mill does not think it unreasonable for society to say that people should not be allowed to benefit from prompting others to make bad decisions. <\/p>\n
Rather, a bad decision should reflect only the individual’s will. Mill acknowledges that persuading people to act badly for profit is an evil, and accepts that society could impose restrictions on such people. <\/p>\n
Another issue is whether the state should discourage vices through powers like taxation. Mill rejects this, saying that it represents a punishment. Since it is not acceptable to ban vices it is not acceptable to punish people for them either.<\/p>\n
Mill addresses the question of whether people should be held to agreements that cause themselves harm, such as selling oneself into slavery. <\/p>\n
Mill says that a person should not be held to this agreement, because he is thereby permanently giving up his freedom, and thereby undermining the very significance of freedom. <\/p>\n
The State should be allowed to legislate compulsory education for children (while allowing for different modes of education), regardless of the desires of the parent. To leave children uneducated is a crime against society and the child, and the state should be able to test that children have general knowledge of facts. Mill also contends that the State should be allowed to restrict marriage to those people capable of supporting a family, given the dangers of over-population and the duty to give children a chance at a normal existence.<\/p>\n
Finally, Mill examines the issue of whether the government should intervene to help people, instead of letting them do things for themselves. <\/p>\n
Mill gives three objections to such interference. <\/p>\n
First, the person most qualified to perform an action is usually the person with a direct interest in it. <\/p>\n
Second, it is useful that people do things themselves for their personal development. <\/p>\n
Third, it is bad to add to the government’s power. A powerful bureaucracy will stifle reform as a means to preserve its own interests, and thus goes against the interests of free people. Drawing the line where big government becomes dangerous is one of the most important political questions. <\/p>\n
Mill’s answer is to decentralize power as much as possible, but to centralize the dissemination of information. He warns about the evils of giving the state so much power that it stifles human development, because ultimately this lack of development will stifle the state itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
John Stuart Mill – 1 John Stuart Mill – On Liberty Chapter One – Introduction The scope of this essay is Civil, or Social Liberty. He writes that this essay will look at what kind of power society can legitimately exert over the individual. In ancient Greece, Rome and England, liberty implied “protection against the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-107260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107260\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}