WEEK 9: Mill's "On Liberty"

[Mateo Duque]

[AYGUL KULA]

“Liberty” by john Stuart Mill 

In chapter one Mill categorizes importance of liberty in three groups. 

1. “Liberty of thought and feeling, absolute - freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical, scientific, moral, or theological, and – liberty of expressing and publishing opinions. “  Freedom of speech, without this right how can a person be free or country or state can be categorized as free. As we all know today, in many different countries government still control publishing, still trying to control theirs citizens' thoughts and opinion.  Mill talks about the times before enlightenment. Times that people were afraid to think and speak.     

2.”Liberty of – tastes and pursuits, of – shaping our life to suit our own character, of doing what we like…”  Everyone should be free to make their own choice in their life to pursue their happiness. Without restrictions people should be free to choose their religion, the way they dress the way they live... People should be able to do things that make them happy. 

3.”Of individual to come together, their freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others  - always supposing that the people in question are of full age and aren't being forced or deceived.”  Individuals freedom should not be interfere others freedom.  Liberty should include anyone regardless the age, gender and race.

[imusicea92]

"There is a limit to how far collective opinion can legitimately interfere with individual independence."

I wholeheartedly disagree with Mill on this matter. When a government is based on opinion of majority it can absolutely interfere with an individuals independence. Take for example the current issues of gun control and gay marriage. The opinion that marriage is made for a man and a women interferes with everyone else's right to get married. Allowing half of the country to own guns potentially puts at risk the other half of the country. The reason I think there is a difference between Mill's opinion and modern affairs is because these issues were not issues when Mill make his opinion. As technology and social issues change we will see a change in the way in which democracy is effective. Is there a solution? Can there be complete individual independence?

[joyash22]

"The only freedom that deserves the name is the freedom to pursue our own good in our own way so long as we don't try to others of their good or hinder their efforts to obtain it"

Miller speaks about the idea of liberty on various levels, discussing ideas that many thinkers debated over many years. Miller brings up the idea of separation between church and state. I think how hard that must have been when they were founding America. Society was entrenched in religion, its morals and ideas. Our founding fathers were deeply religious men, they mention Gd often in their writings. Ultimately there is a separation between church and state, which I am thankful for. Religious  freedom allowed my ancestors to settle in America to pursue their dreams and escape anti semitism of the middle east. In the middle east there are countries that practice Sharia law, which is based on the Koran. In Sharia law women don"t have any rights, and the society at large don't have many rights either. Miller states that religious rule does not equal morality. throughout history we have witnessed this time and again.

Miller writes about the harm of having a ruling class. A majority that has the most influence and is the dominating class. 

Millers piece made me think of what I take for granted. Living in a democracy is truly an opportunity that I need to appreciate on a daily basis. The basic rights that are afforded to us was done with clarity and vision. I am thankful to be living here, in a country where I can live in freedom pursue my dreams as long as I don't infringe on others. 

[AYGUL KULA]

“Liberty of thoughts and discussion”

 

Mill categorizes thought in three groups, false, partially true and true.  He thinks that opinions should not be suppressed even though the opinion is wrong suppression would still be wrong.  Opinion could be partially wrong but by sharing it can be corrected. He believes discussion must be done and experience should be shared.  If a person doesn’t share the right opinion it would be sitting in person’s mind and would be wasted.

 

“If we were never to act on our opinions because they may be wrong, we would  leave all our interests uncared for and all our duties unperformed.”  If a person doesn’t do anything just because he/she thinks that might be wrong, never will have a chance to experience things and find out was it wrong or right. For instance that could be moving to a different country or changing the work field… In this reading of course Mill doesn’t talk about personal life but it can be applied…

 

Mill says “I have argued that freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, are needed for the mental well-being of mankind (on which all other kinds of well-being depend).”

[gregorydny]

Mill spoke about the struggles going on in civilization since Ancient, Greece. He goes on to discuss the various ways peoples rights can be taken away from them by people in power. He also gives suggestions on how to correct this abuse non of which would work because this is not a perfect world.

[Ellie]

1)      “It is just objectively abstractly right that people should be free: never mind what the consequences of their freedom are.”

What Mill is saying here seems extremely narcissistic and I find it hard to understand why Mill (and whoever agrees with him) seems to think that to be free is a ‘right’. Like some sort of entitlement you get upon birth.

First of all, how can you justify claiming freedom as being a right? Because you were brought into existence and you live? Animals live, they breathe the same air as us, and they were brought into existence just like us. Yet, they are denied freedom by zoos, circuses, pet owners and those who use their meat (for things like food, fur, clothing etc…). So why should freedom be a right for people but not for animals (which biologically speaking we are anyways…I think...)? It shouldn’t be.

Secondly, the right to freedom as depicted by the above quote is wrong. It is not an objective right. The right to freedom is very much a subjective right from the viewpoint of people. Just because Mill wants to appreciate the benefits of being ‘free’ (in however way he interprets it), suddenly makes it a ‘right’?? Umm really? How does that even make any sense? Freedom, along with most everything else, is not a right. You may have (or want) the privilege of something like freedom but the desire for it doesn’t mean you are actually entitled to it. You are not entitled to anything. People are not entitled to anything just because they are people. What makes you think that just because you are a person you have higher authority then all the other ‘beings’ in the universe that you deserve rights and they don’t?? Even if it wasn’t in contrast to the other beings, what makes you think that birth as a person gives you some sort of entitlement to rights and freedoms, or anything at all???

[monise_71]

        " Protection against the tyranny of government is not enough  there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to turn its own ideas and practice into rules of conduct and impose them ...."

     In his essay "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill addresses his conception of liberty by underlining the nature and the limit of the power that the society can legitimately exercise over the individual. Mill argues is against the power of the society over individual  and believe that the society interfere to much in individual activities and thoughts. His perception of liberty is that individual should be free to acts as he please as long as he does not harm others. I might not be agree to the idea that an individual should be free to harm himself because this act may affect others in certain way. However, I think that society exercises so much power over us and interfere too much in our thoughts an activities. The society control our behavior in so many ways. For instance, through there are  so many laws  that guide our line of conduct that I think in the true sense of the word I don't think that any one is really free.

       Personally, I think the term liberty is no longer apply to us, because we are in living with a continuous  fear of breaking a law which take away our liberty from us. If we ever fail to act according to the law or according the public opinion, we are subject to be punished by the law or rejected by the society even thought  our behavior does harm any one. It comes to the point that society through laws and public opinion has far more power over our action and thoughts than we have over ourselves.  

[pesantezkevin]

Something that stood out to me as I was reading J. Mills “Liberty” was the idea of having a power or someone stronger than the rest.  Someone who would protect the community from predators, this is someone being sort of a hero in the community.  Yet, this stronger force could take his power and go rogue; by this I refer to the idea of them getting brainwashed by their power and forgetting what they initially have to do which is to protect others around them.  Also not to confuse them and misuse their power, the people granted this must use their authority to benefit the people.  It must coincide with the people want, giving them the liberty to speak out and to not be afraid of this person known as a hero.  Something that did confuse while reading this is that not all people are alike.  For example, five people taken from the same group are not going to be identical, they all might want something different.  If someone who is supposed to protect the people and give them what they want how will they be able to please everyone if each person wants something different. 

[ivandavenny]

If one is to decipher the reasons for customs and what customs are the right ones, one must first discern what the purpose of a society is; whether it exists in order to benefit itself, that is, humanity as a group, or the individual.  Only when you are sure of the goals can you distinguish right from wrong, positive from negative, productive versus unproductive or even counter-productive.  Mill spends a lot of time discussing how argument over these points can be productive, but I wish he had touched a bit more on the actual purpose of society, and whether the will of the society should be different from the will of the people.

He does say on page 7 that "despotism is a legitimate form of government in dealing with barbarians."  This is of course, provided it aims at aiding these uncivilized hordes, but isn't "barbarian" a mighty relative term?  This stems from his idea of maturity, and that only those who are mature should be included in his models (which is unrealistic), but if his later points are true, that even an argument in the wrong is productive to the whole truth, can despotism ever really be a viable or fair form of government?  His argument is essentially that if the opposition is immature, you must take an immature stance to oppose them?  That seems a bit counterproductive.  His argument here seems a bit like Raskolnikov's theory in Crime and Punishment, that some men are simply superior to others and are supposed to be above the rest.  And while I'm sure Mill would agree that men who are wiser than others should be in power, and are better than others, they always still have blind spots, and enforcing an individual's wisdom as law can never represent a society, especially if a part of that society is "barbaric".  

So the argument he would have to take in this case that there is in fact a single correct conscience.  Obviously, I don't think he would make the argument that any human has it, or that a person could ever have it.  But by supporting despotism in this case he is making the distinction between a good conscience and a bad conscience, implying that some ideas are better than others, that there is a hierarchy of ideas.  But if each idea opposes and adds to another, how can there be an all-encompasing correct thought?  In this manner it is a bit similar to Diotima's ideals on beauty, that man builds up towards a single truth.  But, as with Diotima's theory, this is so detached from reality and so improbable (read: impossible) that this falling back on despotism as a necessary force is totally backwards, and would in fact be counter-productive to a mature society built around improvement and individual rights.

[monise_71]

"Of Liberty of thought and discussion"

            In the introduction of the essay "On Liberty", Mill presents the principal structure of his argument and portray civilization as a fight between society and individual about who should have control over individual action. He clearly addresses conception on liberty by rejecting the interference of the society on individual actions. He goes further on chapter 2, and defends actively the freedom of speech and stand against censorship.He states that;" we can never be sure that the opinion we are trying to suppress is false and even if we were sure of its falsity it would be still be wrong to suppress it". Mill clarify his position by outlining the benefits of searching for and discover the truth as a way to further knowledge. That is, even if an opinion is false, we can better understand the truth by refuting the error. 

            I particularly agree with Mill argument of the liberty of opinion because each member of a given is different in many ways. actually, we are living in a multicultural society, therefore we should expect a diversity of opinion and we should respect each other's difference of opinion. Unfortunately it is not always the case. Sometimes some of us are not even allow express our own thoughts because it is against the public opinion.  In fact, laws in important and it would be disastrous not to control certain line of conduct that could harms others. However, I think there is a lack of tolerance of the society of individual opinion. Everyone should have the liberty to express his own opinion as as well others has the right to disagree. If an individual is prohibited to express his opinion just because it is contrary to the common belief how would any one else would have the chance to evaluate the content of his thought? What is the chance that you give this individual progress if he does not even allow to discuss his opinion.?

No opinion or idea is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Therefore, neither the common belief nor the strongest opinion should suppress all the others. That is, I think tolerance and respect of difference opinion is a requirement. After all, we don't have to agree with everyone opinion, but at least be tolerant and respectful toward each other opinion.

[t.rivera511]

"...people who grabbed power without being entitled to it..." 

While I was reading, just in the introduction, I found a lot I had to either agree or disagree with or things to just simply think about like what was stated above. With what he said there, I simply thought "When is anyone 'entitled' to power or anything else for that matter?". And that's a question that I've noticed that I ask a lot. I suppose you're entitled to the air you breath but who says you're entitled to the clothes you wear, the place you live in, the education that's given to you and so on? And who is ever entitled to power! From what Mills says, back in the times of Rome, Greece and France where there were Kings and Queens, those "entitled" were the immediate family. But who gave them the power in the first place? They were the strongest family in the town, I suppose, since they are the strongest vulture fending off the other vultures attempting to pick and devour them...(not his words, my very, very dumb paraphrasing of his words) But why the family? I never understood why they did that. Sure its not done now, and they fixed the problem but its just what I thought myself. But that's besides the point anyway. Entitlement. I don't think we are entitled to anything but what we were born with meaning just the air we were able to gasp. What makes one feel this entitlement? Were they wronged? Like those who usurpers during the french revolution? Were they born in a royal family? Does any event occurring, entitle anyone to anything?

Just a thought

[sremac.sara]

In what chapters I have read of this essay thus far, I have found Mill to do an excellent job in supporting his progressive argument for individuality within a society. It is particularly strong in the fact that he offers criticisms and refutes to these criticisms that contradictors may bring up. The issue I take with the essay is that I feel Mill lacks a follow through in his theories and arguments. He is not very thorough in his explanation of the possible application of his radical and challenging changes in societal policy and thought. Especially given the time when this essay was written, I expected concrete examples of transitions to his theory's application rather than the jump he makes which is straight to describing an ideal society in which his ideology is established and everyone adheres to it. 

Mill states that the object of his argument is to convince the reader that, "The only end for which people are entitled, individually or collectively, to interfere with the liberty of action of any of their number is 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" He sets up and supports this statement strongly, and I agree with his proposed separation of individual and society. However, I understand that this was written in a time when Mill's opinion would be seen as very controversial, and so I understand that his essay is primarily focused on strongly establishing his opinion and making it as infallible as possible. I would be interested though to hear his proposals on how an entire society could transition to the acceptance and allowance of the individual's right to his opinion and liberty. Accepting Mill's theory is easy and natural, but attempting to enforce and oversee its acceptance and application is difficult.

He explains how society has previously progressed, with constitutional checks and representation of the people, but in his own document, which suggests immense progress, he cannot provide similar proposals for actual action. He explains the benefits of a society that embraces individualism and the right to an opinion thoroughly, which are convincing, but once people are convinced they still need to be convinced of the corresponding action, which is absent from Mill's argument. Hopefully he gets more into his theory's application later on in the essay as this is a large necessary piece that I feel is missing. 

[nadiahamidi7]

Dear John Stuart Mill,

As a student of philosophy writing 140 years after your death, surprisingly, I find a lot of your points and examples made to be extremely relevant to present-day America. In your detailed introduction, you point out that “in some of the democratic governments of Greece, rulers were seen as inevitably being antagonists of the people whom they rule” (1). Today, that could not be any truer. A lot of people, especially ones from urban or highly-populated areas, detest the police. They think they are brutal, racist, and practice abusive authority. Now while I differ from this opinion, there are plenty of cases where police do exhibit the above. But to be fair, why are these practices only associated with the police? I, and many others, have had plenty of instances where abusive authority was practiced without being in the field of law enforcement. 

Haven’t we all had an extremely unfair teacher, or even a racist one? My 8^th grade social studies teacher absolutely hated me and made it his mission to see I don’t do as well as I deserved to. I remember getting 100% on one of my tests to which he marked me a 90%. When I asked him why, he told me “Because you used a highlighter when I didn’t say you could. Using a highlighter makes it easier for your neighbors to cheat from you if they looked over.” And that was that. I couldn’t change my grade even though I know I got every question correct. Isn’t that abusive authority?

 I don’t mean to side track, but I do think it’s important to bring out the point that humans only seem to really care when the person of authority affects their legal status. Let’s face it; while I was upset, (and clearly am because I still remember it!) getting a 90% on my 8^th grade social studies test did not affect my life in any significant way. However, if the governing figure of authority tells me I cannot marry whom I wish to, that does affect my life in a significant way.

While majority of homosexuals were not “out in the open” in the 1800s, Mr. Mill, today, they are (or at least a lot more are than they were in the 1800s). Fortunately, in New York, they are allowed to marry, but in many of the other states, they are not. Why are they not? While secularization has grown in many parts of the world and country, there are still some practices or beliefs that many people cannot budge on. Same-sex marriage is one of them. You mention that individuals will “suffer” when “the government has an opposite interest to that of the public” (6). Today, that couldn’t be truer. Even though there are a lot more open-minded individuals, (especially in urban areas) there are still plenty of people living in suburban or rural areas that hold on to the traditions of their forefathers. Consequently, same-sex marriage is a big debate and issue in the country. If a citizen works, pays taxes, and commits no crimes, why should the authoritative figures care about one’s preferences?

You mention in the “Liberty of thought and discussion” that “No-one can be a great thinker if he doesn’t recognize that his first duty as a thinker is to follow his intellect” (21). So what if one’s intellect tells them they prefer one sex over the other? Does that hinder them from becoming a great thinker because they cannot follow their intellect because they must follow the law first? You also mention that “diversity of opinion can be advantageous” (29). I could not agree more! I think societies flourish because of innovations and diversity.

Mr. Mill, your viewpoints have been utmost helpful in deciding my opinion that the government should have no say in the sexual preference of individuals. I thank you for reaffirming my notions and bringing up great and insightful points. I wish you were alive now to see your theories in action. I send my best prayers to you in the grave.

Sincerely,

Nadia Hamidi

[yuliyazhivotenko]

"On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills, his main belief is to show how important one person is when he/she is in a situation against the majority. One single person or being should not have all control or power over everything. It is unfair for one to have all the power because of wealth or through inheritance. Many ancient civilizations believed and followed this system, which in some way occurs in present day.

Mills thinks that majority should make the choice over what the minority has to say. Throughout history, the idea of a single ruler wasn't succeeding and the people weren't content with that proposition. As mills talks about the government he portrays a sense of distrust believing that the government can actually be harmful and destroy society. Human beings have rights and the government should obey these rights that citizens have, but instead it seems like the government only misuses its power against the people to achieve what they want.

[kingholee]

Unlike the other readings we had in the first half of the semester before the spring break like Decartes, Hume, Clark, this Mill's reading is quite different, it's no longer just about our mind, our brain or our personal identity, now it's about the society, this reading is like a mix of philosophy and sociology and political science, I think it's very interesting, thinking about the political issues in a philosophical way instead of the boring way we always use in political science may give some solutions to the issues we never been able to solve.

[Juliet Harper]

 Hello

       *  At the beginning of this reading I didn't understand what he was talking about. I had to look up the word "Tyranny" which mean a nation under such cruel  and oppressive government.  Mr. John Mill mention that " ......So protection against the tyranny of government isn't enough; there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to turn its own ideas and practices into rules of conduct,.....There is a limit to how far collective opinion can legitimately interfere with individual independence" in this part I cannot help to think about what happen on Flatbush Ave a couple of weeks ago with the people protesting with what happen to the child. These this  somehow relate to this situation on Flatbush or no? and the reason I say this is because he also say " so some rules of conduct must be imposed - in the first place by law, and secondarily by public..." so on that case the police (Law) deal with the situation of the child and on the other case the people being the secondary public felt that the Law was wrong, is another quote by him I draw the thinking that on page 6 second to last paragraph also stated that "..... to interfere with the liberty of action of any of their number is self protection" so here you have a community trying to protect there rights with what they believe is right. Mr. John shown us that we don't need a majority to go against the Tyranny but because we have opinion we should/ try to express it freely.

       * Yes I do believe that people personal preferences is had up of the customs and moralities. Religion is a factor of some of these personal preferences

[rebecca.s]

Something that intrigued me in the introduction. On page 8, Mills is laying the groundwork for human liberty. In part 2 he says that liberty will be achieved when people are allowed to shape their life to their own character, i.e., do what they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. First of all, I like this because within the one sentence Mills is saying two distinct, and important things about the role of government. First of all, he assigns a limit to the power of those who rule: they should not have a role in the manifestation of personhood, which is to say, there cannot be a ruling class that dictates how people ought to become who they are. They cannot dictate character. Secondly, he recognizes the important role that government has for protection. Liberty is not achieved if the rulers are so relaxed and open in their judgement that it allows its people to be harmed by one another. It is the government's role to prohibit the shape of people's characters from hurting other people.

However, I am wondering how he proposes we define 'harm' (the word Mills uses specifically is wrong, "so long as what we do doesn't harm them, even though they may think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong."). For example, it is clear to most humans that the government ought to protect its citizens from a murderer, because the shape of a murderer's character is that to outright harm another person. There then exists a sliding scale of 'wrongness', to which we eventually get into some gray area. It is wrong to murder, rape, steal, drive drunk, etc. However, those things all involve physical properties of some sort. Is it wrong to lie? Is it wrong to have sex with someone you're not married to? There are many people who think that it is, and that premarital sex wrongs many parties. Is heartbreak a result of being 'wronged', in the eyes of Mills, and should it be something the government protects from? This is probably where I've crossed over to the part of being wronged that most people agree that the government shouldn't protect from. But where and why is that distinction made? It is physicality? 

[andrewaalvarez10]

While reading this I found that a lot of these ideas Mill's bring up are very similar to the one's James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers. It brings up this idea of how much liberty can an individual have in a state with a governing body. Mill's says that usually a group with an opinion that carry's the majority tends to hold more power. Madison called these opinionated groups factions and just like Mill's they both say that these could be harmful to the state or society. I would agree with Mill's and Madison on this point because I don't believe that the opinion of the majority is justified to be the right one especially when the only justification that it is right is because the majority has a strong belief in it. This was brought up by Mills when he said, "There is a limit to how far collective opinion can legitimately interfere with individual independence.." Mill's was also saying that the majority faction can inflect on our individual independence. I think this is talking about not only the political effects of major factions but what are the social causes of having an illegitimate faction that holds the majority. This is a reoccurring theme in our history in America particularly especially ever since this country was started there has struggle for racial equality and that deals heavily with illegitimate factions holding majority. Mills created this check list though of what makes a legitimate faction and his third point is kind of difficult to account for. The point he makes is that you can only unite with other individuals for any purpose as long as it does not harm others. The problem with this is that sometimes you don't know if you have harmed individuals only in a retrospect and that can be hard to account for because what some might see as harm can also be seen as maybe teaching or enlightening.

[dahlia4808]

Reading on Liberty by John Mill, is very different from other reading. I was confused at first but ound it very interesting. Mills views on political powers and ethics. Mill want individuals to have liberty , which I get as freedom. I disagree and somewhat agree with mills on this issue. Mill states that once we a apart of a social setting it will be very difficult to provide us with that liberty. if we have the freedom to do what we want to without restrains then the world would be upside down .We all need some social control. Without control crime would be up and people will have a lack of self control.We all want freedom but we need some kind of control to.
Dahlia

[elena.pronoza]

"...social tyranny...is more formidable than many kinds of political oppression. Although it isn't usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means to escape, penetrating much more deeply into details of life and enslaving soul itself."

In the first chapter John Mill talks about tyranny that is more dangerous than "the direct acts of the public authorities". Social oppression when it is going in the form of one social opinion or public view to some problems can be really aggressive. Individual thoughts when they are strictly criticized or are hardly allowed will be endangered in these cases. They will show up less and less often until they disappear  in general. Mill is concerned about limits of power society can put over an individual. This question is very vivid and eternal. Mill mostly repeats thoughts of philosophers before him talking over and over again about that important topic but tries to do it under different angle. I believe it is reasonable and in hundred years people will still write about liberty and their rights. It is a constant fight between government and its people and between majority and minorities. Mill's arguments are very constructive and consistent but hardly can be called new or fresh; as he mentions, "I embark on yet one more discussion of something that has often been discussed over the past three centuries". As long as people will enforce their opinions over others question of establishing limits will be necessary to discuss. No one wants to be left behind without chance to live its own life in his way or being restricted in expressing opinions. So, as long as we ready to let others be, we have a chance to have this right ourselves.

[Yolanda Challenger]

The part of the article that I've read so far that appealed to me is, "the ultimate appeal of all ethical questions is to utility" which means to what the consequences are. Utilitarianism in itself is doing the right thing that benefits the cause of society with the ultimate result of happiness.

The article states that a man can be held accountable for not saving another man's life, when it is duty and right to do so. which come to a story that I once heard, suppose that you were a driver on a train and there were six men on the tracks that were deaf and the train was going head on to the men, and to save the men you had push a man off the bridge because he was scared to jump. That man ultimately would die, but the six men lives would be saved. 

Utilitarianism considers this to be the correct thing to do, but I still see it as a man is dead and it is not the right thing to do, because you have to live with the guilt of killing someone. John Mills would say that it is by your actions that the six men lost their lives and that you should be held accountable.

[Elvira Toporova]

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 person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
In this quote the majority still rules even if wrong, but they have the opportunity to change, it does not say that they have to take the opportunity. Nor does it say that the one minority opinion, though it be correct, has the right to rule. For have we not heard it said, "I would rather be right than President." This is the case for patience in such a society.to understand the benefits of majority rule and the need to muddle through even when it is in error.

[krystalgonzalez.28]

"The rules that hold in their society appear to them to be self evident and self justifying.  This almost universal illusion is one example of the magical influence of custom..." 

This quote stood out to me because it reminded me of Hume.  Mills speaks about how most people just seem to go along with the governments rules on society.  Things seem ok people just kind of go with the flow and things don't change because its custom.  Society is use to a certain way of living and certain rules that are given in this country.  It has become custom and people don't really try to change it.  This reminded me of Hume speaking about cause and effect.  Hume said that because we are use to routine in life we become accustomed to things and always expect them to be the same.  This is just how humans minds seem to work. Why fix whats not broke, is another famous quote that proves that people are influenced by custom.  I agree with Mills because in now in the United States people are so use to our government and when someone wants to make a change to the rules, it becomes a very big deal, for example gay marriage.  This also relates to what Mills spoke of about individual independence.  There really isn't much individual Independence for people because we are following every rule the government wants, and if we have a different opinion on something it has to be brought up to the government in which they will make the decision of agreeing with what your opinion was or not. In the end my point from the quote I choose was, we tend to play it safe with the rules our society has, and if their is a change, people are not use to it.  This is when riots, petitions, etc. happens.  It really is a sort of tyranny.  If we don't follow the rules our government gives and we decide to do something about something we don't agree with, we will have to fight and group with others to get things changed.  How is that liberty?

[g.dlegister]

" On Liberty"

   An interesting out look on control, social class and freedom. There is a point where Mill argues if "First: the opinion the authorities are trying to suppress may be true. Those who want to suppress it will deny its truth, of course; but they aren’t infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are sure that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty" My interoperation to come from this statement is the idea of censorship and what is being fed to society. If rules are in action to protect the freedom of expression and speech, so  it shouldn't be higher force devaluing a person opinion. Then Mill continues to support his argument with examples of how this would be different in the monarch society, The way I understood the point of this example is like have an argument with your parents. Most parents want to set rules, order and standerds in the household, by doing this no matter how much you( the Child in the're eye) might be right on subject of the issue. "You speaking back, giving lip to your parents is wrong" the idea that you can be tricked in feeling guilty or having case proven wrong is what I'm comparing the example that Mill's make about the monarchs. I don't know if Mill's is making a comparison of what society in liberty is suppose be like and his he really trying to state its unreal or a fantasy? 

[stephane1]

Mill has been one of my favorite philosophers, he is one of few philosopher who makes sense and is easier to relate his work on todays society. Specially this excerpt on liberty, where it interested me the most is when he talks about the tyranny of the majority where to me is one of the cons of democracy because the opinion of the mjority can shut the voices of many others even if the majority's ideas might not be the best. More like you are free to do whatever you want as long as it's acceptable to society.

[stephane1]

[Soon M. Seo]

Soon M. Seo
J. S. Mill_Liberty_3 Individuality
“He must not make himself a nuisance to other people”(Mill 36).
“different kinds of personal character should be given free scope as long as they don’t injure others”(36).

    Mill argues that individual opinion must be secured to be free. I think he believes there cannot be a definite truth on the issue we are handling. The subject cannot be deductive. The issue is about diversity and individuality. Mill talks about freedom to realize one’s belief and the social oppression about it. Even if the oppression is from God or society, destroying individuality is tyranny to him. He thinks ignoring diversity may cause the end of human civilization.
    It is about balancing I think. There is no fixed answer to the argument about individual freedom and its effect to the society. I say, no definite answer is the answer. For instance, similar cases make different judgement, in a court room too. Some supports death sentence, some does not. Wars are not supposed to happen, but it is happening. Everybody knows it is not a good thing, but still it happens because we are imperfect human beings and we need it sometimes. All we can do is to discuss, try to think right, and try to balance what is going on around us. I know it sounds wrong, but I’m trying to see things around me straight. Terrorism is horrible. It still happens. Effects are caused by causes. We just try to make it right.

[pesantezkevin]

Something that stood out to me while I was reading Liberty was the idea of how people base their decisions on.  Some of these being their prejudice or superstitions, their social feelings, their antisocial feelings, and their desire or fear for themselves.  These shown between men and women, between monarchs and subjects, and between nobles and peasants. These examples of how people base their opinions on can’t be helped because it is in the nature of a person.  What I fail to understand is how this is found to legitimate.  How do things actually get done when someone is appointed to rule?  For example, if someone is accused of a crime that they did not commit in one specific case, but they have a previous record of committing crimes or they just look like someone who would, but the one who committed the crime is still out there.  How would the police of anyone in charge of solving this case get anything done if they believe this criminal look like is the guilty one.  This showing that peoples decisions is influenced by their opinions. Can someone be found that does not think in this way to rule and keep in mind the liberty of the people without letting their opinions influence their judgment.

[jay]

Hi

On the topic John Stuart Mill - Liberty, He talk about how our actions on morality can affect other people. At first I did not under the word Tyranny and what the word mean. to my understanding there are three region of liberty but the one I like is the one to taste and pursuits which mean to me is that once you got the feeling something that you have the ability to go after it. example many immigrates coming here to American and getting the taste of it has learn to adopt to the America lifestyle in which help them persuade they dreams. What also interest me is that he struggle between liberty and authority and I don"t see why. For it "Liberty was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers" and to me authority is the political rulers then the two goes hand in hand right. It was a story i understand.