Through responsibility, the ways an individual’s actions can harm another member of the society becomes too vague and ultimately becomes illogical. The definition must be more specific, and must account for human fallacy and exceptions. Mill does not permit exceptions, however harm is subjective and there may be scenarios he does not consider. In order to become viable, his argument requires further specification. With this further refining, however, it becomes a logical method of looking at liberty.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
Mill is discussed how society will judge even if the person is only doing harm to him or herself and wi... ... middle of paper ... ...ered enough, which is a huge objection to Mill’s argument. In conclusion, On Liberty, chapter four by J.S. Mill focuses on how each member of society should not harm others and how everyone is obligated to keep society safe maintaining a balance. In this chapter Mill reviews his ideas surrounding the “harm principle” and holding individuals accountable for their actions to others. He also argues in this chapter that society has the right to punish individuals who harm other members in society.
For Mill the only time we must justify our actions to society, or the government, are when they concern others and most importantly, bring them harm. Mill makes it clear that harm is much more than mere offence, he also gives some examples including physical harm and harm to our financial interests such as taking away property or money without our consent. Mill also accepts harm in certain instances such as judicial punishment, so ... ... middle of paper ... ...onally accept harm as legitimate reason for the government to restrict individual freedoms, everyone's understanding of what constitutes 'harm' is different. Utilitarian's may propose that harm is anything that is detrimental to an individual's happiness. If freedom is as important as Mill suggests then we can consider any restriction on freedom harmful, in which case the Government must constantly consider the degree of harm necessary to justify and outweigh the harm they will undoubtedly be causing by imposing restrictions on individual freedom.
Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose tr... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
Obviously if you don’t know in advance that someone is trying to rile up a crowd, you can’t censor them live, so censorship would not help in such a situation. Such people are criminals and can be dealt with accordingly, and the people have a right to know what was being said to influence their peers, so that they can prepare themselves for whatever onslaught may occur. To what extent should censorship be allowed? Censorship itself should not be illegal, but it should not be done by the government either. Censorship should be something that people and businesses choose to do on their own, for their own reasons.
Those who fall outside of this category would therefore believe that we are not bound over to obey the law and that in fact we should be morally obliged to disobey any law that we consider to be immoral. There is however a problem with this situation, in so much as it relies on appealing to a set moral code to justify our actions and such a moral code is merely an abstracted system of laws. I believe that we can be morally justified in disobeying laws, which we consider to be immoral and there are several reasons for this. I believe that it is only possible to happily live in accordance with our own moral code, it may also be possible to live without too much dissatisfaction within the bounds of laws, which dictate a stricter moral code than our own. However I do not believe that it is possible to happily exist under a system of law whereby we are obliged at times to break our own code of morality.
The number one problem associated with self deception is that it has the capability of creating moral dilemmas, such that people use it as a "prophylactic against leaning from experience," according to Dalrymple. Because one knowingly deceives oneself into believing something even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. The main driver of self deception is self interest. Due to our concern for our own well being we choose to believe and hold certain beliefs. Dalrymples argument is that by refraining from making judgements we are refusing to evaluating what is acceptable in a society and we let certain behaviors such as crime and brutality to flourish.
The five steps state the following: a. If not taking part in such a behaviour with cause you, or others around you harm b. On the other hand, if by taking part in this behaviour, you will not cause a lot of harm to others c. Ensure that your behaviour will not glorify the behaviour itself and that others will not be likely to do it themselves. d. You taking part in this has no relation with others taking part in the same behaviour. In case the public finds out that you had been caug... ... middle of paper ... ...s and refusing to pay the bribe can lead to the shutting down of your business, it is morally justifiable to act in your own favour.
According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral.