Paper 2 (Mills)

•  The dominance of the majority presented new threats of tyranny over the individual
• Mill worried that the exercise of such powers would lead to stifling conformism in thought, character and action
• Mill’s empiricism leads him to believe that we do not have direct  insight into the truth, and that all of our beliefs must remain open to revision in light of further observation
•  certain true beliefs should be suppressed because, although true, they are thought to be harmful.
• But to argue that we should suppress a view because it is harmful would either be to assume infallibility on its status as harmful, or to allow debate on that question—which in turn must involve debate on the substantive issue itself. Therefore, truw harmful beliefs should NOT be surpressed
• The assertion of false opinions leads to debate—which in turn leads to greater understanding, and hence, false opinions should not be surpressed
• he argues that it is best for individuals that they are given freedom and space to develop their own character. On the other, he argues that it best for society, too
• Mill believes that the great danger of mass-society is self-repression and conformism, leading to the sapping of human energy and creativity
• harm principle:

  the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others
• we harm an individual only when we violate an obligation to that individual
• preserve the individual’s freedom not only in the face of the threat of legislative or state coercion, but from the threat of more insidious forms of social coercion
• negative liberty: a person can act without being obstructed by others

  • focuses on absence of external limits/restrictions. Advocates for limited role of state authorities (ie. absolute free speech)
• positive liberty: possibility of acting in such a way as to take control of own life and realise fundamental purposes, involving roles of the state in creating conditions for the individual to achieve self realization

  • encompasses availibility of oppertunities and capacity to use free will (ex. states role in public healthcare)
• Mill and authority-liberty problem:

  • strongly emphasizes the importance of individuality and self expression as components of well-being and societal progress
• Harm principle: the freedom of the individual should have, as its only limit, the point at which it begins to harm others

  • defense of individual liberty against tyranny of the majority
• Limits to authority:

  crucial to ensure that authority does not overreach and stifle individual freedom and creativity

  • protection of society's members from physical and moral harm
• Mill described On Liberty as being about “the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.
• liberty is essential to ensure progress, for both the individual person and society—particularly when society becomes more important than the state

  • ex.  when the opposition between the rulers and the ruled disappears, because rulers only represent the interests of the ruled.
• Mill rejects attempts, either through legal coercion or social pressure, to coerce people's opinions and behavior. He argues that the only time coercion is acceptable is when a person's behavior harms other people—otherwise, society should treat diversity with respect.
•  Liberty of opinion and action is valuable for two main reasons:

  1. the unpopular opinion may be right
  2. if the opinion is wrong, refuting it will allow people to better understand their own opinions
• Mill's essay has been criticized for being overly vague about the limits of liberty, for placing too much of an emphasis on the individual, and for not making a useful distinction between actions that only harm oneself, and actions that harm others
• For Mill, a civilized person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand
• 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.
• 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
• "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
• 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.
•  if a person causes harm to others actively or inactively, it is appropriate for society to condemn him legally or through general disapprobation
• Mill divides the appropriate sphere of human liberty falls into three categories:

  1. domain of the conscience, and liberty of individual thought and opinion
  2.  planning one's own life, and the liberty of tastes and pursuits
  3. liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that does not harm others
• These liberties reflect the idea that true freedom means pursuing one's own good in one's own way, as long as it does not prevent others from doing the same. These ideas directly contradict society's increasing tendency to demand conformity
• 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.
• 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 acknowledges that persuading people to act badly for profit is an evil, and accepts that society could impose restrictions on such people. 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.
• people should not be held to agreements that cause themselves harm, such as selling oneself into slavery. 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
• 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
•  his notion of harm should refer to any stimulus, event, action, et cetera which decreases another person’s utility and could therefore include anything from a punch and wrongful imprisonment to unpleasant odors and offensive words. If harm is understood this broadly, though, the harm principle becomes virtually worthless, since it would comprise many behaviors, and power could be “rightfully exercised over” people not only to prevent them from physically assaulting others, but also to prevent them from writing vulgar or disagreeable pamphlets or refusing to shower.
•  the suppression of speech, therefore, may be based not on a presumption of infallibility, but rather on a cost-benefit analysis, just as the criminal justice system is. Of course, this does not mean that suppression is, in fact, generally a good idea (I don’t think it is), but it does mean that Mill’s argument, although rhetorically powerful, is erroneous.