John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and the misuse of “Freedom of Speech” One of the most pertinent questions proposed by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty is the question of to what extent society has a right to control and impose limits on individuals. Liberty is essential to the progress of the individual and society, though bending to one another is integral to the functioning of both. According to Mill’s philosophy, the power of the individual is at the mercy of governments and the “tyranny of the majority,” –a term referring to the social customs, beliefs, attitudes, and opinions that are accepted by the majority as the ‘right’ way of being. While a government coerces obedience and compliance through force and threat of action, the tyranny …show more content…
The first part of Mill’s argument in favor of lacking restrictions on individual liberty is that individuals should not be accountable to society for behavior and actions that affect only them. This idea as a simple ideology is justifiable, but fails to stand practically, as in our interconnected society, there is no action that does not affect someone else. The often cited example of a drug user not at fault since they are only affecting themselves discounts their family and the family’s networks who are affected, the neighborhood in which they live and consume drugs, their work environment and coworkers, if they receive government assistance the government becomes a shareholder in that person’s wellbeing, and so on. The idea of a “victimless” crime or behavior is impossible outside of social recluses that live and exist entirely outside of society, of which there is not a statistically high enough number for an argument to be based upon. And while Mill does maintain that a person is answerable for any type of behavior or action that harms others and it is the …show more content…
Mill clarifies that the greater good is only served by allowing individuals to do and think as they please, as long as their actions do not harm others. However, Mill’s theory of liberty is not a practical one for living in a society and functioning with others; it is another theory that does not account for the human variable. While the debate on whether privacy should be sacrificed for national security has been a rampant one in American society appeals to Mill’s first debunked theory, for a society to strive towards a ‘greater good’ there is the implicit Socratic idea that a single good exists. If the ‘greater good’ is served on a case by case level, it is not singular, but rather subjective, and therefore impossible to attain. Further, when getting into the semantics themselves, people are creatures of reason, but also creatures of emotion and the meaning of what would be considered “harm” varies from person to person. And because all societies are composed of varying people with different notions of “harm” and “good,” in order to function with one another, we must level and compromise, otherwise why create a society at all? A society where individuals are only concerned for their own personal benefit and not at all interested in the ‘greatest good’ for all is
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
... that it is one’s responsibility to further the society as a whole by expressing one’s own ideas because doing so is key to preventing society from stagnating and becoming stale. Both authors also have differing views on the role of moral obligation since Marx also claims that morality as a whole is created by the Bourgeoisie to oppress the Proletariat and that it is therefore invalid, whereas Mill claims that moral obligation is one’s self owed debt to express one’s opinion, regardless of the society’s view on it, since not expressing one’s opinion would leave one’s character undeveloped. Despite their differences in view on the content of social and moral obligation, both authors agree on the point that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own decisions, and insofar as these decisions affect others, they are also responsible for the state of their society.
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
The short essay On Liberty was written by an English philosopher by the name of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In this essay Mill basically talk about the system of utilitarianism to society and the state. Mill attempts to establish standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He emphasizes the importance of individuality which he conceived as a prerequisite to the higher pleasures the “summum bonum” of Utilitarianism. Furthermore, Mill criticized the errors of past attempts to defend individuality where democratic ideals resulted in the "tyranny of the majority". Mill explains his concept of individual freedom of his ideas on history and on the state. On Liberty relies on the idea that society progresses from lower to higher stages and that this
In the On liberty, Mill also highlights the aspect of individuality as one of the elements of well-being. John Stuart Mill points out the inherent value of individuality, since individuality is by definition the thriving of the human person through the higher pleasures. He argues that a safe society ought to attempt to promote individuality as it is the pre- requisite for creativity and diversity. Therefore Mill concludes that actions themselves don’t matter, rather the person behind the action and the action together are valuable. However on the limits to the authority of society over the individual, generally he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In
Meaning that a state or an individual can limit another person’s liberty in an effort to protect the person from self-harm, since it justifies the restricting of liberty to engage in actions that threaten imminent harm to others. As utilitarianism, Mill tries to find the best possible outcome for the greatest number of
Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.
John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.
John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective.
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
...nturies. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.