John Stuart Mill: On Liberty

The Harm Principle
1. "The only purpose for which power can be legitimately exercised of the civilised community is to prevent harm to others, His or hers own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrent"
  1. The Harm Principle rules out different types of interference
    1. Moralism
    2. Offense-Preventing (When we interfere to prevent behaviour others find offensive
    3. Q: How do we distinguish harm? Is harm sufficient for interference, or necessary? Is this only consistent with Utilitarianism?
      1. What is harm other than mere offense?
        Is it only ever physical?
        Harm is damage? physical or mental? which passes the threshold?
        Harm context relative?
        Harm depends on doing something wrong?
        Mills answer: Actions are harmful when they violate our rights
        HOWEVER there is the problem of trying to appeal to the rights on a Utilitarian picture.
        A Utilitarian cannot easily say that we have rights which it is always violated wrong
        Can this be squared with the fact that JSM constantly goes on about our Right in On Liberty?
        Yes, as long as those rights are not fundemental, but rather the conclusion to utilitarian reasoning
        We should deem people to have whatever rights it should in order to maximise utility to accept them as having.
        Utility and Rights
        Rights and Harm
        Someone is harmed by an action when it violates some interest of theirs which it would be good (from the standpoint of utility)to treat as the content of a right.
        If an action doesnt do this, it isnt harmful even if it is offensive
        Utility: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they produce otherwise
        Rights: Identify interests whose protection would maximise happiness. Judge people to have rights which protect those interests
        Harm: Define harm as something which violates those rights. The Harm Principle allows interference to prevent people harming others.
        Harm Prevention vs Anti- Harming
        Anti harming: A can coerce B in order to prevent B from harming others
        Harm- Prevention: A can coerce B in order to prevent harm to others
        Involves much larger scope of legitimate interference than we might have orginally thought
    4. Paternalism
      1. X acts paternalistically towards Y by doing Z when 1. Z interferes with the liberty of Y: 2. X does so without the consent of Y; 3. X does so only because X believe Z will improve well being of Y
        Examples: Regulation of use of recrational drugs, Laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmates. Restrictions on gambling. Laws compelliing people to save for retirment
      2. Both Harm Principle and Mills argument for individuality imply paternalistic intervention is unacceptable
        One way of challegning Mills conclusions will be to explore whether paternalistic intervention might sometimes be acceptable
        Epistemic Arguement
        Allow intervention or not?
        Isnt the job of the state to help citizens lead better lives? If we intervene to stop people harming themselves?
        The claim that people are always the best judge of their own interests is wildly optimistic. People don't always act on their better judgment and so paternalistic intervention may still be beneficial
        Appeal to Individuality
        Freedom of tastes and pursuits should not be limited, because freedom is necessary to cultivate and maintain individuality. Individuality is beneficial for both people and society
Utilitarian: Greatest good = the greatest happiness
1. The Greatest Happiness principle = Holds that actions are right if , in proportion they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to promotes the reverse of happiness
Freedom of Thought and of Expression
1. Note: Mill uses a consequence-based criterion for restricting free speech (But depends on Whether a given piece of expression in its context will cause Harm
  1. This contrasts content based or intentio-based approach (on which the propositional content of the speaker's intention are what matters
2. Restricting Free Expression
  1. Restrictions on freedom of expression might be okay when the expression is a direct and positive instigation of a mischevious act
    1. In some contexts a speech act might itself be a harm. In which case restriction is OK (because of the Harm Principle)
  2. Mills Strategy
    1. Argues using a divide and conquer strategy
      1. considers all permutations of opinions we might consider silencing, and show in each case that it is wrong to do so (subject to caveat below)
        1. Cases where the opinion is silence but maybe true
        Silencing true opinions
        Sometimes non-conforming opinions are true But we are bad at realising that we might be wrong
        Silencing true opinions means we might miss out on truth and progress
        Obj 1: Companions in Guilt
        means that you can't forbid opinion even if you think its wrong people are allowed to be wrong because it is their right
        Response 1: The state like anyone needs to assume that belief is true in order to act; but it doesnt need to decide that for others
        The only way that we can be justified in assuming that the truth of prevailing opinion is if we have allowed it to be challenged
        Obj 2: Utilitarianism
        We should silence even true opinions, perhaps general happiness can be increased by probigating a falsehood, or by silencing truth
        Response 2: In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truch can be really useful
        Obj 3: Truth will out: We dont really need to worry about the use of coercion because coercion only really works against falsehood. If the opinion is true then it will come out in the end.
        2. Cases where the opinion is silenced but is false
        Silencing A False Opinion
        1. Its not east to know if an opinion is false. 2. Even if we imagine we did, we would still be unjustified in suppressing it. 3. Thats because true beliefs need constatnt testing if we are to keep a firm grip on what they mean and why they are justified. 4. Otherwise they turn from living truths into dead dogmas
        3. Cases where the opinion that is silence maybe partly true but not the whole truth
        Silencing Mixed Opinions
        Most opinions are going to be in part true and false. But then both Mills arguments apply, If we silence such an opinion we cant correct false elements of the prevailing views and true eleements will risk becoming dead dogmas unles they're challenged and defedned
Freedome of tastes and persuits
1. Experiments in living; Various relgious activites Different jobs, Different hobbies, Different types of relationships
  1. Mill thought we should be free to do whatever we like as long as we don't harm others. This is good for us individually, and society because it fosters individuality
    1. "It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it and calling it forth...that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation"
      1. Uniqueness
        avoiding conformity and being different to others
        Marth Argerich: Unique, not autonomous or all-roundedness
        marr
      2. All-roundedness
        This idea of developing and integrating all your talents. It's an ideal of all-roundedness, as opposed to mediocrity or one-sidedness
        Serena and Venus Williams, all-round but not unique or autonomous
        He
      3. Autonomy
        This is akin to mordern ideal of autonomy: deciding for yourself what is valuable and living yourlife in accordance with that decision
        Sylvia Plath, Not unique or all-rounded but autonomous
        dy La
        She is unique, all-rounded and autonomous
2. Individuality and Personal Well-being
  1. Paternalism problem
    1. 1. Might individuals be dangerous for soceity?
      1. Mill acknowledges that not all experiments in living will actively benefit society: only those of persons of genuis will do so.
    2. 2. Does personal well-being really require individuality?
      1. Mill says: because we are progressive beings indivduality is central to our well beings
        but we could deny this( because we think that we are embedded within out cultures/communites and promoting individuality would damage this crucial component of our well being
    3. 3. Is mils focus on individuality compatabile with Utilitarianism?
      1. possbile strtegies for reconcoiling them: Say theres an indirect act utilitarin reaons to behave as though individuality is important?
        Say that individuality is part utility?
        What if indivduality is independent of Utility?
        Mills contermporaries thought this was a serious problem for him. Maybe Mill just didnt understand his own position as well as he could have
    4. 4. Is Freedom of tastes and pursuits the only (or best) way to promote individuality?
      1. Mill says: peopel have a dangerous tendency to bow to cutoms and follow the crowsd. But if thats the case we might need to do more to ensure that people develop and express their individuality That might include intervening paternalistically
  2. Individuality is good for individuals because: 1: only by exercising choice can we develop important human capacities
    1. 2: Human beings can't be happy if forced to live according to other peoples plans
      1. 3. Experimenting is necessary to know what is best for yourself and how to live your own life as you see fit
  3. Individuality and the good of society
    1. 1. We can all learn something from people who experiment
      1. 2. Social progress depends on "people of genius" they can make significant intellectual/political/ethical/technological advances and they can only emerge and thrive under conditions which nurture individuality

Next up

John Stuart Mill: On Liberty

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Adam Fraser over 7 years ago