In Chapter 2, 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. Mill emphatically says that such actions are illegitimate. Even if only one person held a particular opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing him. Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions.
Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that 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. 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. Mill contends that such confidence is not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas.
After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at possible criticisms of his reasoning and responds to them.
First, there is the criticism that even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act on their "conscientious conviction." 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. To this, Mill replies that 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. 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. 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.
Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i...
... middle of paper ...
...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
Mill presents one possible criticism of this view. He writes that it could be asked whether it is essential for "true knowledge" for some people to hold erroneous opinions. Mill replies that having an increasing number of uncontested opinions is both "inevitable and indispensable" in the process of human improvement. However, this does not mean that the loss of debate is not a drawback, and he encourages teachers to try to compensate for the loss of dissent.
Mill then turns to a fourth argument for freedom of opinion. He writes that 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. Progress usually only substitutes one partial truth for another, the newer truth more suited to the needs of the times. Dissenting or heretical opinions often reflect the partial truths not recognized in popular opinion, and are valuable for bringing attention to a "fragment of wisdom." This fact can
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
Further on in the text, Mill even seems to minimize the importance of the first principle by declaring that it is only useful for settling disputes ove...
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
Mill also addresses the idea of governments interfering in an individual’s life in some form of help or benefit without infringing on any liberties by presenting his three objections. The first of which being the idea that “… when the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the government.” (Mill p.121). He believed that individuals can best decide matters which pertain to their own life because they are the ones who are most “personally interested in it.” (Mill p.121) and because the individual is indeed usually the one who possesses the most intimate knowledge of their own life that they should not allow others to decide what is best for them personally. The second of Mill’s objections is that even when the individual
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.
Mosquitoes have been a major annoyance to humans for the millions of years of our developing ecosystems throughout the world, and they will be until we do something about them. But should we really do something to get rid of them? The common use of insecticides and pesticides is much too dangerous to use on the entire planet, and we really don’t know enough about the mosquitoes to get rid of them. What is the purpose of the mosquito? What could happen to the human race if we continue to use insecticides? What would happen to the global ecosystem if we rid of mosquitoes? Humans don’t always think major, environment-affecting decisions like these all the way through, which is why mosquitoes should be kept alive for the sake of the ecosystems of the world, and especially for humans.
Addiction is a disease that affects by ten percent of Americans but countless others, including family and friends, are devastated by it. Addiction is not a choice that a person can make; rather the disease takes away people’s ability to make conscious choice. Science has advanced to show exactly how drugs affect the brain chemically, proving that it is a disease and not a moral failing. Addiction is a disease and should be treated through rehabilitation and community based support groups such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), not imprisonment, and the state and federal governments should increase funding and programs for prevention and treatment.
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).
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
...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.
Then that individual must be left to his own devices, mill makes this apparent when he states "the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself" it is also crucial to our understanding at this point to mention that while mill does not contend that all opinions and schools of thought are of equal worth either morally or intellectually, he strongly purports the notion of freedom of speech, and states that individuals or groups of individuals also should be allowed to voice opinions and promote ideas which they believe in despite how unpopular they may prove to be among general society, to the extent that those who hold such opinions are in the minority, mill illustrates this when he states "If 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” this touches one another key area of Millean scholarship that is crucial to our understanding of mills 'one very simple principle' and that is the notion of the tyranny of the majority which is a scenario
Mills suggested that only an open discourse between and within supporting and opposing ideas can reveal the truth in a “marketplace of ideas”. This process of truth-finding is aided by the public whose opinions not only contribute to this discourse but also, help to decipher which information is accepted as truth (citation). Limiting this exchange of ideas, prevents society from establishing the truths in which their political, economic and social systems are based upon. The second of these arguments include the freedom for the public to actively participate in the democratic process. Freedom of speech is designed to protect and enhance democratic ideals, facilitating exposure to and the critique of political and judicial error.
Mills starts out in his first argument by being concerned that people were being silenced when voicing their opinions. He voices that by saying: “First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility”(50). Mills means that when someone’s opinion is being silenced by another, the latter will assume that their believes are to be true.
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. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. 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.