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
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
On the other hand, John Stuart Mill would have regarded such democracy as a great improvement on what went before, but hold a different attitude toward it. He believes that everyone ought to have a voice, but not everyone should have an equal voice. Mill, in the first place, objects to the distinction between classes and...
To understand Mill’s argument for toleration and why it entails no objective assessment, it is very important to distinguish between the applications of one’s personal beliefs. For instance, Mill argues that there should be no objection to a person’s individual belief and opinion (freedom of conscience), yet he believes there are certain limits to how a person can act on those beliefs. These limits are established by the Harm Principle. Mill professes his belief in autonomy except when a person proves to be placing others in danger with their actions; he asserts that "no one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions." Mill does not believe it is possible to make objective assessments of people’s beliefs and ways of life because beliefs do not have the potential to cause harm as actions do; every human being is the only one to feel his own body and know his own mind intimately and directly. Also, everyone ...
Unlike the other styles, free jazz exhibits atonality, dissonance, collective improvisations like that of New Orleans jazz, and no form, in the case of blues abandonment. Free Jazz contains rich-texture, great energy, and untraditional playing. Two impressive free jazz recordings are "Civilization Day" recorded by the Ornette Coleman Quarter and "Hat and Beard" recorded by the Eric Dolphy Quintet. The recording, Civilization Day, is extremely energetic, amusing, and fast-paced. Coleman exhibits passion and enthusiasm in his playing of the alto saxophone. Nearly all the instruments utilized in Civilization Day plays in a hasty manner and not very swing-like. At :24, there is unaccompanied collective improvisation from the alto sax and trumpet, generating an expressive sound. The alto sax and trumpet seems to be communicating with each other in squall-like sound. More significantly, the alto sax and trumpet play in wail-like, unusual manner. At :27, Cherry plays his trumpet with expressiveness and eccentricity. The rhythm section sounds twinkling especially because of the constant crisp ride cymbals generated from the drums. The cymbals are persistent throughout producing an ostentatious-like sound. At 1:20, the drums halt playing for a moment, while the alto sax plays improvised solos with accompaniment from
There are three main types of staffing models that are used; budged based, nurse-patient ratio, and patient acuity. According to research there is no perfect staffing model,
The goal of life is the development of your abilities in accordance to your personality, which require freedom. The four benefits of freedom of speech include, the majority opinion may be incorrect and without freedom of speech there may never be a reform, we may learn new truths by arguing false views, uncontested beliefs do not equal knowledge, and uncontested beliefs lose all meaning and positive effects on your behavior. Mill’s argument defending why it is important for people to have freedom states that every person is different from one another, and people need to be able to find out what makes them happy through experimental action and not by being coerced by society or the government. What works best for some people, may not be the best option for
It is imperative to discuss with nurses how they perceive staffing and how it relates to patient safety, quality of care, and if there are certain cares left undone due to staffing concerns. This article was chosen because nurse staffing is a massive issue in any nursing practice. The patient’s and other staff feel the devastation when the patient to nurse ratios are not precise. Working overtime produces exhausted nurses that cannot perform at their ideal productivity level. This results in poor patient outcomes, frustrated colleagues, and subpar work.
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
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.
Mill argues in Chapter 2 of On Liberty that we need not suppress opinions, even if they are false, because they promote truth. Mill argues that the people or government should never use coercion in suppressing opinion because an opinion is a “personal possession of no value except to the owner.” This means that opinions only mean something to the one that is expressing the opinion. Unless the opinion is directed to harming others, there is no reason for it to be suppressed. But Mill thinks that the most important reason why suppressing opinions is wrong “is that it is robbing the human race.” Mill means that the suppression of an opinion hurts the human race because there is a possibility that the opinion could be true. If it is true and is suppressed, we are stuck with a false opinion. Suppressing an opinion because
Mill argues that society should be able to express their thoughts in a correct manner. He writes, "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." (Mill 6 ). This quote means that a human being should have a certain limit to prevent harm to another human being (Harm principle). For example, I tend to believe that my manager harms others by cutting down their hours weekly if the employee calls into work if something harmful happens to them. Therefore, Mill’s point is that the concept speech is that we shouldn’t harm someone if we’re going to harm them.
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
Addiction is a choice the first time they pick up. The addict is choosing to pick up the drug even if they know it is morally wrong or it something that could potentially kill them, they are still making that choice. Most of the time when choosing to pick up that drug they are influenced by friends, their environment or even coping with a feeling they are having.When a person makes a choice there are consequences, good and bad. Their lives have endless amounts of choices, from what food to eat, to what car to drive, to what to wear that day.”A person has to make a choice to use a substance, whether that choice is prompted by a medical need, or that choice is just a matter of wanting to have a good time.” Sometimes they do not always think about the choices they make, but the people that become addicted also don 't think about their consequences and how it affects them and those around
Drug addiction is a very big problem in today’s society. Many people have had their lives ruined due to drug addiction. The people that use the drugs don’t even realize that they have an addiction. They continue to use the drug not even realizing that their whole world is crashing down around them. Drug addicts normally lose their family and friends due to drug addiction.