undefined
On Liberty: very different from Utilitarianism, but written only two years earlier
Key question:
1) When can the government put an individual under its “compulsion and control”?
2) What kind of compulsion and control should there be?: legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion?
155
Mill: the only time the liberty of action of an individual can be limited is for the purposes of self-protection
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.
: what do you think of this point?
When can government regulate the behavior of an individual?
The Harm Principle: Could be contrasted with: Legal Moralism or Paternalism
Mill clarifies this harm principle: the only part of someone’s actions amenable to society:
That which concerns others.
Mill says
the individual is sovereign over himself
Meaning: over his own body and mind,
: what does it mean to be sovereign over one’s body and mind?
Mill writes in sort of an implied question and answer format
Question: What about children?
155: doesn’t apply to them: only people in the maturity of their faculties–adults.
Question: How does Utilitarianism fit in here?
I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
Mill philosophy of life: as people, we need to be able to develop freely
Remember the mental pleasures over the physical
Real emphasis is on mental freedom:
liberty of conscience, freedom of opinion, liberty of thought.
However: also discusses the liberty of tastes and pursuits
Without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.
No society which does not have these liberties can be considered free.
: how much should the law play a paternal or moral role in society?
John Stuart Mill a classical liberal
Government should be limited in its ability to regulate the affairs of individuals
Contemporary Liberal: more: government has a responsibility to ameliorate (fix) the inequities in society.
Contemporary Liberal: not exactly a socialist, but sees the market economy as causing structural problems, that it is government’s job to fix.
Classical liberal does not see government as an agent of social amelioration!
Classical Liberal: similar in some ways to today’s conservatives, similar in other ways to today’s contemporary liberals
: what is an area where conservatives oppose government interference: gun control, environmental regulation, regulation in the workplace?
What about an area where contemporary liberals oppose governmental interference: drug laws, de jure racial, religious and sexual discrimination?
Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
Mill is an extremist in the defense of liberty of thought.
Opposes Government limiting speech even in the best of circumstances
Argues that if 99/100 people believe something, that other person should be allowed to speak and have the freedom of their thoughts.
He thinks that there should be the maximum possible openness of discussion.
Offers Rules for Discussion:
You shouldn't refuse to hear something because you're certain it is wrong.
People believe in the opinions of the people around them--they constitute "the world."
Problem here: pg, 160
Popular opinions ... are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth, ... But exaggerated, distorted, and disjointed from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited.
Recommendations: Men & governments must do their best to pursue truth.
Discusses the importance of listening to both sides of the argument.
Pg 160. Three Points.
1) a silenced opinion might be true.
2) a silenced opinion even in error may contain a portion of truth.
3) accepted truths must be vigorously contested & defended.
(what kind of opinions are valid ones?)
: what do you think about these point?
What about the point of view of someone you really find offensive?
What about Chapter III: Of Individuality as One of the Elements of Well-Being
Get a negative side of Mill here:
Mill believes that men should be free to have opinions
However: should they be free to act on them?
Not always, it is okay to have opinions but there are limits to protest.
160: Mill says: no one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.
Mill doesn't like people who picket factories.
161: The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.
Also talks about accepting the consequences of your beliefs
: what might this mean?
Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual
This part starts out with the question:
What is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself?
Mill rejects the doctrine of the Social Contract {consistent with utilitarianism}
However: if we receive protection from society, we owe a return for the benefit.
THE LIMITS OF SOCIETY'S AUTHORITY OVER THE INDIVIDUAL
Mill puts 3 areas in question.
1) Sovereignty of the individual over himself.
2) The authority of society begin?--where does it begin?
3) How much of human life belongs to individuality & how much to society?
: what do you think of these questions?
Mill rejects the notion of the social contract.
He thinks that living in society gives us obligation.
Society has jurisdiction over individuals as soon as what they do begins to harm others.
How do you regulate individuals?
Issue of Paternalism: how much authority does the society have over the individual:
: what MORAL PROSCRIPTIONS do we have in our society?
Range of moral proscriptions: Alcohol laws, Gambling laws, prostitution laws, marriage laws, etc.
Does the state have a right to regulate or prohibit things in these areas?
Mill emphasizes individualism.
He thinks we have a right & duty to avoid those we think are harmful.
We should stay away from alcoholics,
But, public opinion, not laws is the only thing to restrict conduct & character which concerns an individual's own good.
Pg. 162 More of the Q&A method
Poses question: How can anyone's conduct be a matter of indifference to others?
Example: Those who violate long established moral truths--drunkards, gamblers, people who are idle, unclean or incontinent.
We know these people are doing wrong–these things are injurious to happiness.
What form of powerful police should we form to stop them?
Mill’s answer: Focus on anyone who does things that move him out of the self-regarding class
Key distinction: self-regarding and other-regarding behavior
: does this distinction hold for as much as Mill wants to do with it?
Mill: we punish people for causing verifiable harms though their acts
For example breach of duty to family or creditors.
Example: Mill mentions George Barnwell,
1850s crime case: murdered his uncle to give money to his mistress.
Barnwell would be just as wrong if he murdered his uncle to do something prudential like financing his business.
: what do you think about this?
What about a drunk driver who hasn’t harmed anyone yet?
Mill argues that when the public interferes with purely personal conduct
The odds are that it interferes wrongly and in the wrong place.
Public opinion is usually right on moral matters, but it could be wrong.
Problem of tyranny of the majority: The majority, essentially imposing their beliefs upon an unwilling minority.
Mill is concerned with the tyranny of the popular opinion over the free thought of dissenters toward popular opinion.
People for example: 163 “who consider it an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for.
Example: a religious bigot would not like people practicing a religion he doesn’t like.
163: Mill’s objection: your offense at my position is like a purse snatchers taking offense at a woman carrying a purse.
He complains that "moral police" can easily encroach on liberty.
Chapter V: Applications
How to apply Mill’s doctrines:
Mill favors a free market and free trade
Government shouldn’t for example, set prices
Mill argues on consequentialist grounds that such restraints are wrong because they don’t work.
However: Government can restrict certain things:
Sanitary rules at restaurants, workplace safety rules.
Other side: the Maine Law: alcohol prohibition
Objects to the Prohibition of the importation of opium into China.
Talks about the sale of poisons: if the only purpose was to commit murder,
prohibiting their sale would be appropriate
Poisons may have useful purposes
: would such a thing apply to say, guns, today?
Mill thinks there should be warnings–such as, does this product contain poisons, but no prohibitions.
People who commit crimes while drunk might no longer be permitted to drink.
Idleness is okay, unless you are receiving assistance from the government
Fornication & gambling permitted--choice of pleasures is the individual own interest--doesn't like gambling houses or prostitution.
Original version mentions pimping--shouldn't be against the law to be a pimp.
Makes the point that the taxation of stimulants for revenue is okay, but not for the purpose of restricting use.
Mill also against slavery: a person is not free not to be free.
What about Marriage Laws?
Marriage--should only be binding as long as both partners want it to be.
Divorce very difficult if not impossible to obtain at the time.
Why should laws regulate marriage?
Mill does think Wives should be protected against their husbands.
Mill’s main point: individuals are not to be held accountable for their actions that concern only themselves.
Advice, instruction, persuasion & avoidance are the only measures permissible against this.
Individuals are punishable for actions that incur on others.
Furthermore: Government must not take over everything.
Society works better when the state does not coerce complicity.
: what do you think of Mill’s views here?
