WEEK 10: Dostoevsky's "Grand Inquisitor" and J.S. Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1 and 2

[Mateo Duque]

This week we are finishing up the excerpt on Dostoevsky--"The Grand Inquisitor", which has taken much longer than I anticipated. We are then moving on to J.S. Mill's "On Liberty," excerpts from chapters 1 and 2.You don't have to try to make connections between Dostoevsky and Mill. However, I think that the Grand Inquisitor's discussion of freedom in humans leads us nicely into Mill's, somewhat related, topic of social or political liberty. Be very careful with Mill. Mill is not talking about individual freedoms and liberties as, for example, enumerated in the United States' Bill of Rights. Instead, Mill asking about what liberty the government should have in meddling with and interfering with its citizens. This is a topic that always seems bring up a lot of debate because I think it is an issue we are dealing with even now.

[Duvall Ledbetter]

"Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. So because the whole strength and value of human judgement depends on a single property, namely that it can be set right when it is wrong, it can be relied on only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand". (Mill pg 13).

 John Stuart Mill tries to analyze the way we make decisions based on criticism and different viewpoints. I agree with Mill on the point that very few facts are able to tell their own story. If you think about it, facts can be interpreted differently from a variety of perspectives. Although a fact stands as true, there can be different stories as to how that fact came to be. For example, a former soldier's account of World War II may differ from other stories. Our personal stance on something is often critique in many ways and we criticize others judgement based on personal experience. There's no right or wrong answer when it comes to opinions because we argue them all the time. 

I wonder what facts is Mill referring to. I believe that all facts have some commentary behind them to bring out their meaning. That's why we have discourses about them so we can learn new things. 

[sharifa]

"In any country that has a dominant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from that class - from its interests and its feelings of class superiority...On the other hand, where a class has lost its dominant position, or where its dominance is unpopular, the prevailing moral sentiments frequently show the marks of an impatient dislike of superiority" (Mill 4). 

I believe this to be true, especially in America. Our dominant class, we tend to follow certain characteristics of it. An example of this is the permanent relaxer that was invented for Black women. Initially is was brought about to emulate the dominant class, and to somehow feel like we are apart of that class. Even though this emulation can be prevalent in other minorities, it is not so strong as it was back then. We have came a long way, and America has taken other races into consideration; the dominant class is not of superiority as it was back then.

"He should freely be allowed to put his opinions into practice at his own cost" (Mill 36).

Opinions of other things and people should be greatly valued; however, an individual should be able to understand not only their side of an opinion, but also the other side. It shows a great deal of knowledge and open-mindedness. In a perfect world, I believe an opinion should be given some thought before it is said or publicized, but sometimes people feel it is necessary to say what they want, which can be interpreted as ignorance instead of an opinion. 

[asiyebodur91]

Mill describes the world tipping toward a balance in where the societies, through laws and public opinion, have far more power over the actions of the individuals and also the thoughts that person rather than that person thinking for himself. Mill states that people should be able to decide or have an opinion on things which affect them directly and have an influence on them. I agree with him because we see examples of this all over. Just a basic one is media. The media society decides which news we  hear, whose songs we listen to and the commercials that we see. This is a huge impact on us because most of the time people go by what's "popular" or "known".  Sometimes humans do not think, they just consume whatever is put forward, without questions asked or even looking for another possibility.

[Linda Chen]

"On matters other than plain empirical fact, popular opinion are often true but are seldom or never the whole truth" John Stuart Mill

Mill has a point that is still valid today. The idea that a person is allowed have opinions and not be scrutinized by the government. I believe that Mill is correct, to allow people to join together with one common belief without harming others who do not have the same views. If we take a look at police officers, people must have had the same opinions about having designated workers available to rescue victims and protecting society. Regardless if it was for the good of for people, it cause no harm in anyone who opposed it other than being protected should in case of an emergency. Mill's idea of being able to shape our own lives is also something I agree with. In today's world, we are allowed to plan for a future that we are not certain we would have, yet without a single question we take for granted the fact that we are not limited to this very freedom. For instance, drawing on a walls as decoration is seen as work of art. It may be a skill someone may want to develop in the future to be a painter. But in Malaysia, drawing on someone's property is a crime that is punishable even to visiting tourist. Our freedom to choose our future is strongly encouraged in America within the boundaries of our laws. Finally the liberty to express your opinion and join others with the like opinion is also a freedom Americans enjoy. For instance, our freedom of religion. There are some parts of this world where only one religion is allowed and people who rebel are persecuted.  I agree with Mill on these basic facts that our opinions should be allowed contingent on it not harming anyone.

Chapter 2
People should have their opinions heard and not be silenced. For not silencing a group allows other people to not be afraid and to focus on where they belong in society as a whole. Just as the majority has an opinion and are being heard, so too, every person should have their opinions heard contingent on it not harming anyone for the sake of democracy.

[tayo.ojudun]

"But thoughtful people saw that society itself can be the tyrant- society collectively tyrannizing over individuals within it and that this kind of tyranny isn't restricted to what society can do through the act of its political government. Society can and does enforce its own commands; and if it issues wrong commands instead of right, or any commands on matters that it oughtn't to meddle with at all, it practices a social tyranny that is more formidable than many kinds of political oppression. Although it isn't usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life and enslaving the soul itself. So protection against the tyrant 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, and impose them - by means others than legal penalties --on those who dissent from them " (Mill 3)

I know this is an extremely long quote, maybe even too long at this point to be even be considered a quote anymore, but as I continued to read; more and more of the words seemed to be as important as the words that preceded it. Mill brought up a topic that I hadn't even really given much thought to, and maybe others haven't either. As individuals in a "democratic"(I'm not sure if I believe we are an 100% democratic nation, when only people who have financial or can obtain the financial means can afford to run for government positions) society, we are constantly worried about the government infringing on our god given rights. People always state things like "I'm just exercising my right to freedom of speech" when protesting, as an excuse to say this or that against the government (Occupy Wall St.). However, people never really worry or think about infringing on others liberties. Early on Mill clarifies what he means by liberties, stating it is "limits to the power that the ruler should be allowed to have over the community", but what about the power that each individual has? To some, democracy is subduing your god giving rights to the government for the greater good of the people as a whole.  

I've never thought of the society itself as one that could become a tyrant. Of course there are rebellions, but that is against the government, therefore it is somewhat acceptable. Mill brings up the idea of tyrant over other citizens, which is a very intriguing thought. How exactly could this be possible I question. How could two apples from the same tree claim one is better than the other when they are identical? When Mill discuss this idea, is he referring to the different gender roles in which we places upon one another? And when individuals decide to not play their role they are outcasted. I agree with Mill when he says this has more of an impact than political tyranny. How can an individual care about what the government is doing when they feel like their life is falling apart. Furthermore, how can each individual be protected against the tyranny of others? That is more powerful than that of the government? This protection from "prevailing opinion and feeling" of others has to come from within and does come at a price. This "prevailing opinion and feeling" are faced on a daily basis and even takes place with the ruling government; it's extremely hard to get away from. Therefore, the penalty for it will most likely be nothing. These "prevailing opinions and feeling" are most likely the cause of bullying and have been widely accepted by the masses. If anything is going to change it has to start with understanding we've accepted these opinions and they don't work.    

disclaimer: my thoughts were very back and forth on this quote, but it did spark something in me during my reading.

[lrwilen4]

"Everything taht makes life worth living for anyone depend on restraints being put on the action of other people. So some rules of conduct must be imposed- in the first place by law, and secondarily by public opinion on many things that aren't fit subjects for law to work on" - Mill "On Liberty"

Mill has a very valid point when saying that humans need restraint to be put on them in order to make life worth living. Throughout centuries we see the truth to this statement. The big challenge is in finding the proper median between creating government constructed rules and leaving things up to the discretion of the populace. when a government has rules which the populace does not like there is potential for upheaval and rebellion, like the code of Hammurabi. the code of Hammurabi was government instated laws that the government saw as fair but most of the populace strongly disagreed with. Later in time, when the Bolshavicks rebelled against their leader it was also because they did not agree with the laws and un-fair taxes that were placed upon them. We see that throughout time governments tried to place rules on the populace and if the rules where seemed to be unfair the populace rebelled. I feel that we have learned from the mistakes of the past and governments no long try to impose unfair laws. however, there always was and always will be the hard task of trying to find a median between the justice of laws. 

I wonder what type of society would be created if the government created minimal laws and left most decisions to be made by the individual. would society thrive or would everyone kill each other 

[Carmen Wang]

"So men's opinions about what is praiseworthy or blamable are affected by all the various causes that influence their wishes concerning the conduct of others, and these causes are as numerous as those that influence their wishes on any other subject." (Mill on Liberty, Chapter 1 p. 4)

Mill describes how some people's opinions or judgments are based upon feelings or preferences rather than reason. I believe this is true. For example, the Holocaust event that occurred during WWII resulted in a mass of Jewish people being murdered. The main reason for this is because of their leader, Adolf Hitler influenced the Germans to hate Jews and to believe that their race is superior. So, what they believe is legally right to do can also be influenced by the beliefs of other people and their ideas, especially from a leader they follow. Hitler followed his feelings, such as what Mill describes as "antisocial feelings" of arrogance and contempt. If we followed right reasoning for ethical conduct, such as it is evil or bad to murder someone because it harms the other person, then we are able to form a judgment that is just.

If humans are so easily deceived to follow their feelings and the wrong beliefs of other people, then is not humans imperfect? And if humans are imperfect, should not all all-perfect God and moral law giver be included in our law system and beliefs in life?

"Everyone knows perfectly well that he is fallible, but few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or allow that the errors to which they admit they are liable might include some opinion of which they feel very certain." (Mill on Liberty, Chapter 2 p. 11)

Mill believes that mankind is fallible, and I have explained that through the first quote. This second quote, Mill thinks that false human judgment can be corrected if they follow a set of guidelines that can help prevent errors, so that either the government or individual can form a true opinion that they are confident of and set it as a conduct for others. One of the guideline is to be open-minded and listen to the opinions or positions other people have on the subject. I agree that human judgment can sometimes be wrong, and is often corrected when we listen to what others say through facts and arguments. For example, I used to believe that a woman has the choice to choose abortion, just as long as I myself do not commit it. But as I listen to the facts of how a baby at three weeks old can have a beating heart, and at 10 weeks can start breathing, I believe that the baby is alive and if people choose abortion, it is murder.

If people are so fallible, how many laws have we set today in the United States that are wrong?

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

' but the special wrongness of silencing the expression of an opionion is that it is robbing : not one individual, but the human race, posteritt as well as the present generation, tbose who dissent from the opinion as well as those who hold it.'

I think that in this piece of information, Miller says alot. We pride our nation for the power to speak freely. If we were to have our opinions taken away we, we wouldnt be the individuals that make up our nation. We as a race have fought long and hard to be able to give our free words without consequence

[staceydavidyants]

"To an ordinary man, however, his own preference (with other people sharing it) is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason but is the only reason he has for most of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety—except for notions that are explicitly written in his religious creed, and even that is something he interprets mainly in the light of his personal preferences." (Mill, p. 4)

In today's society, we often find ourselves having a viewpoint that we can easily justify by our own internal thoughts. This can be applied to anything, whether it be abortion, gay marriage, or politics in general. Our own preference is the only reason we need in order to formulate an opinion. But nevertheless, society does have an impact on personal preference. It is hard to maintain a preference when society or the government impedes on that decision. During the last presidential election, there was a lot of talk about Romney's stand on abortion. And while we can all agree that abortion is a very private matter that each person is entitled to have their own opinion about, Romney publicly declared that the only women he thinks to be allowed to an abortion are those who have been subjects or rape, or are under medical risk due to the pregnancy. However, I do not believe this to be something that the government can lay their hands on. A woman should not be told what her preference should be in the case of pregnancy. This should be an entirely personal notion of morality, that no one, and especially the government, should not judge. 

[staceydavidyants]

In addition, I'd like to ask, in what cases is our own preference not enough of a satisfactory reason for notions of morality? 

[jossianny(jossy)]

"If the opinion in question is right, they are robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth..." (Mill, 11)

 Mill on liberty and The grand inquisitor both talk a lot about liberty but in different ways. From class, it was said that the grand inquisitor wanted to limit freedom so that there would be less evil or no evil at all. We could see here that Mill is against that. I think he is saying that by limiting liberty there would be no way on knowing the truth which could also be the good. By having liberty is more easier to find out what is wrong and what's right.   

[jimborat69]

What we have is liberty with guidelines. Just like our freedom to work or not work. I don’t think we have another choice but to work. However they say it’s our freedom to choose but do we really have a choice. Yeah, we can go to welfare but we all know that it will not support us or our family. My point is kind a confusing because that’s our so called liberty. The weirdest part of it is I do believe that we have liberty but in a limited way and also if the big brother (government) approves it. We are free us the little ants but when the scent of the trail is gone, we are a ruin. We see in the news how people are badly treated in countries that are under communism and we also see in the news how US citizens abuse their liberty. However in US that citizen who does abuse their liberty goes to prosecution process. This makes everything back to fairness.

[trinimjs]

The grand Inquisitor

                 Many people in the world today are rebelling or being rebellious in one way or another.  Most of the time is because they do not agree with a rule of the home or a law in the land or state they are in.  But in order to reach this rebellious state of mind we must inquire what one is rebelling against.  So we make and inquiry. It may be about the law, religion politics etc.  But in this instance Ivan was inquiring and questing his religion, which by the way is his right and free will.  I believe he is trying to justify how God made people happy (Pg251) “You promised, you established with your work, you gave us the right to bind and lose.”

Here Ivan refers to God when he said in the bible “What will be loose in heaven will be loose on earth” and to Ivan in heaven one will be happy. So the same happiness that is loose in heaven should be loose on earth, but instead he is seeing the opposite. Depression and injustice surfaced.  Then Ivan concluded (Pg253) “They will finally understand that freedom and earthly bread in plenty for everyone are inconceivable together never, never will they be able to share among themselves.” Ivan is try to prove that the happiness that was promised to us when we get to heaven should be experienced here on earth.  And that to Ivan will never come to fusion