WEEK 9: Mill's "On Liberty"

[Mateo Duque]

[gulyabigela]

"Of course no-one admits to himself that his standard of judgment is what he likes; but when an opinion on how people should behave isn't supported by reasons, it can count only as one person’s preference; and if ‘reasons’ are given, and turn out to be a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people’s liking instead of one person’s."

I think this phrase shows a deep understanding of the inner processes, based on which  a lot of the laws, rules are founded in the society. Sometimes these laws indeed come out of people's feelings, or moral preferences. For example, there was a big question on marriage of gay people in New York, and this issue still remains in many other states. The point is why it is such a big question, scandal, and so on? Does the marriage of two people of the same gender bring harm to other people? No. So, why the freedom of choice has to be even questioned? I believe it is because many people feel as it is not right. However, this feeling is not legitimate. Even though many people share it, it is still only feeling, which shouldn't be considered as a true, final opinion on the problem. 

I guess this example vividly demonstrates to us what it is - a tyranny of the majority, where people unite together on the basis of one feeling, which is irrational by it's definition  and try to impose it to the rest of the population. Fortunately, in this case, such a basic right as a freedom of choice eventually, at least in our state, became possible. 

[Linda Chen]

"To justify compulsion or punishment- the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be likely to bring harm to someone else" (John Stuart Mill) pg. 7

To have an opinion must be the foundations of our government because it is the government that represents it's nation. This includes mayors, presidents, and all elected officials. But what if our elected official became a bad choice chosen to represent the people. Mill states that this is our right to have good and bad opinions because it protects us from people who has power. It protects the sonority from a majority with the freedom to be heard. He believes that because of bad and good opinions we can derive a "fragment of wisdom". It takes time to sift through opinions and shape them into one that is perfect for society. He talks about Christianity in terms of being one opinion that is considered correct, and anyone who refute it or thinks other than this is wrong. Mill believes that this is not a complete thought of all opinion and is therefore subjected to errors. As a whole, he believes the answer will turn out to be correct. But I disagree with Mill's prospective because not everyone will have the correct opinion about what can be done in specific circumstances. For instance, going to war with another country is decided by our military leaders and sometimes our president. We can not rely on the country as a whole to determine this aspect of government because they do not have the knowledge about what is suitable for this situations. Although we should be allowed to state our opinions, it is the reason why we elect people to determine what is best for the country. If there is a problem, we can then impeach our leaders.

[staceydavidyants]

"The ‘people’ who exercise the power aren’t always the ones over whom it is exercised, and the ‘self-government’ spoken of is the government not of •each by himself but of •each by all the rest. The will of the people in practice means the will of the •most numerous or the •most active part of the people; that is, the •majority, or •those who get themselves to be accepted as the majority."

In this statement, Mill points out that in a self-governed nation, like the United States, it is not actually the people who are imposing their will on themselves, but rather, the majority imposes its will on all the rest. He calls this idea, tyranny of the majority, and it is used to explain how the majority may use its power to oppress the minority. This concept has certainly been seen in United States history, and even today. I agree with Gulya Bigela, who pointed out the idea of gay marriage and how it is oppressed in many states by the majority who are against it. Gay marriage does not cause the person engaging in it to cause harm to anyone else, yet the majority still manage to oppress it and not allow it to be legalized in many states. In conservative states, for example, it is likely that gay marriage will never be legalized, or at least not unless it is a decision of the federal government. The up rise of conservatives would simply be too enormous to allow such a thing. And in the past, we can see how white people, imposed their oppression, on the blacks who were considered the minority. Although, African-Americans were supposed to be the same, equal citizens as whites under our government, the reality was the complete opposite. It took a very long time until black people and even white females, were granted the same rights as white males. While all of these are examples of the government's tyranny of the majority, Mill also goes further with the point to say that there also must be a protection from the society's majority opinion imposing on a person's individuality. We all see it and feel it, how we can easily be swayed by the ideas of others if they sound convincing enough. In certain instances, that definitely thwarts our individuality. The question I would ask is in what instances should we stand our ground and not allow the ideas of the majority affect what we think ourselves? I would say that when it comes to gay marriage for example, our own opinions should certainly stay the same, regardless of what the conservatives or liberals are saying.

[odinredd]

     John Mills does as much philosophizing as he does psychological analysis when he talk about liberty. He talks about how how government is supposed to uphold the will of all people but he lets us know that "the will of the people in practice means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people." (Mill 2) He talk about how custom has remained one of the most dangerous illusions of a healthy government. It seems that the illusion of free will and custom is so utterly etched into society that it really is a huge interference in the ability of having what real liberty would entail. Since custom is derived from the dominant people it really makes it more difficult for someone to step outside of their own instilled beliefs and see what is actually going on.

     I believe that if we can get past the illusion of what we have known and grown up with to be the correct thing then we will be able to see other sides and make better decisions on what we must do. If fact Mills talks about how the wise man, and someone who is able to be respected of opinion, is someone that will not suppress an idea but will in fact be open to hearing any idea, even if he already knows that it is wrong. This person is also willing to admit what is wrong and will also be able to move forward with it. I agree with this completely.

[odinredd]

"The principle is this: 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."(Mill 6) 

Mill takes a strong stance here that "no society in which these liberties are not mainly respected is free, whatever form of government it has."(Mill 8)

A people should be able to make their own mistakes if they want to. They can be advised against doing what everyone else knows that they should not be doing, but they cannot stop them unless it ends in harming others.

I think we can take this idea to the arguments of soda. Soda has no value to any form of health. Actually, it is harmful to you. According to Mills, from what I understand, the soda companies should be held responsible for their actions and they should shut down the soda plants since it is actually harming the people of a government. I think this is a great idea! Thank you Mills!

[staceydavidyants]

"Take any proposition that isn’t self-evident: for every person who is capable of judging it, there are ninety-nine others who aren’t; and the ‘capability’ of that one person is only comparative; for the majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved many things that no-one would now defend. Well, then, why is it that there is on the whole a preponderance among mankind of •rational opinions and •rational conduct?"

Looking back at history, it has been a common occurrence for a person who made a conclusion that differed from the public standard to not be oppressed or even exiled from that social community. For example, Galileo first said that the earth moves around the sun, which is the center of our solar system. This extremely went against the views of the church, who believed that the Earth is the center of the universe and all things must revolves around it. Galileo was treated like a mad man for his thoughts, even though the church was not actually capable of judging his  now proven theory by anything other than their own rationality. Why was it that it was their belief's that were held to be rational and not the new found theories of Galileo at the time. Mankind is always imposed to be on the side of rational opinion, even when rational opinion does not find itself to be correct. In truth, a person's own thoughts should be their real rationality rather than the rational of the whole. Today, no one who has at least the slightest bit of astronomical knowledge would defend the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe, but yet at the time, this was considered a completely rational belief. What standing does rational belief and conduct have in our society today? I would say that it is still a whole lot, but definitely less than in the days of Galileo because we no longer have the fear that his society had. While we may be subconsciously oppressed to rational opinion of the majority, we at least have a right to our individuality.

[m.inam.gul]

"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"

While reading Mill's On Liberty one can quickly get a sense of a utilitarian philological approach. And i personally agree with the above phrase, i think it is our responsibility to interfere with actions of liberty to preserve self-protection. "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" Some of the ideologies that Mill sets forward can be controversial. He notes that the right of liberty does not apply to children or backward societies. Mill also questions weather people should be able to influence other peoples opinion and he says that silencing these opinions is wrong.

I still have some concerns of the effects of excessive liberty. Because their can be some potential side effects of giving excess freedom. People can sometimes abuse it and join one another and undergo their own tyrannic views and oppress the minority.      

[laquintaclark]

"To justify compulsion or punishment-- the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be likely to bring harm to someone else. The only part of anyone's conduct for which he is answerable to society is the part that concerns others. In the part that concerns himself alone his is entitled to absolute independence. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

 

Mills expresses that we have total independence of ourselves unless we put others in harms way. It is important in today's society to be independent from the "hold of the world" or "the man" in some sense; but we are not totally independent. There are rules everyone must follow and in doing so have little independence to stand on, when you have put someone's person in danger it is right for someone to step in. He also talks about responsibility being taken up by someone who does not prevent something from happening that could affect a person's life and I find that interesting because we are all responsible for others actions whether it affects us personally or not. As we grow up we are taught moral values and how to be a good citizen which can lead to all sorts of things we can do to help out our fellow man.

[kenlyv]

Mill describe human liberty into three categories. First, there is the domain of the conscience, and liberty of individual thought and opinion. Second, there is planning one's own life, and the liberty of tastes and pursuits. Third, there is the liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that does not harm others.

I agree with mill, that liberties reflect the idea of true freedom that without these three no society is truly free or respected. It is through liberty that bring balance to our society. It also keep us from being consume by the governments (bad choices).

[vgultyaeva]

" Tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time."

Mills points out that people are being forced into acting certain ways because social norms and mores are dictating rules for our lives. Personal freedom is only on paper and in actual life opinion of majority (tyranny of majority) is what governs person's behavior and decision making. conformity replaced individuality! 

Only the richest the most powerful ones are more or lass have some freedom to express their honest opinions or to act in true to themselves way. As human society progressed need for conformity became stronger and if not that person is singled out and persecuted. Even though harshness  of persecution has changed still no one wants to be singled out there fore to confirm is the only way to go.

I feel like the small group of the most powerful silently seat the norms and than the rest follow.

[nadezhda.yakimchenko]

" so the aim of the patriots was to set limits to the power and the ruler should be allowed to have over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by ' liberty'.

People have always sniped about the rule of goverment but in actuality we are the ones who give them this liberty to set the limitation. We made the rules and we chose what liberty is and how we will define it. As long as the goverment sticks to the limitations we have set them we lead happy lives. Yet as soon the goverment steps out of bound we bite back at the goverment. I believe we have. Set the limitation and as long as we out number we can control more than people believe.

[vgultyaeva]

I feel like Mill's is being idealistic and not realistic. Ideally everyone deserves and should have the ability to be free to act and think as they want if it doesn't effect others in any harmful way. however in human society i feel that it is impossible because there will always be someone that is stronger, more powerful, has more money and wants more. There will always be lower and upper classes and one will repress the other.

[Blanca]

" It might seem easier for me to defend my position if I took this stance:
‘It is just objectively abstractly right that people should be free; never mind what the consequences of their freedom are.’ But I Don’t argue in that way, because I hold that the ultimate appeal that all ethical questions is to utility—i.e. to ‘what the consequences are’. However, it must be utility in the broadest sense, based on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, make it all right to subject individual spontaneity to external control only in respect to those actions of each individual that concern the interests of other people. If anyone does something harmful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him—either by law or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapproval.

Mills explains that there is a struggle between who takes control over an individuals thoughts and actions. Individuals may have freedom and independence but Mills believes that society may have over powered the actions of an individual because societies opinions and laws influence a persons thoughts. Mills doesn't accept this view and argues that society should only overpower actions of those who affect everything and everyone else around them because too much freedom can lead to consequences.

I understand why Mills believes that society can influence an individuals thoughts. We are all individuals who should have independence and freedom to have our own ideas and opinions but being exposed to society can change all our views about the world.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous because it was a weapon that they would try to use against their subjects as much as against external enemies" (Mill, 1). 

I agree with mills on how governments use their power wrong. Some times when only one person has the power to govern a whole tribe, city, nation it gets to their head and they may misused their power.Power is something every person wants because its something that everyone cant have.

[kenlyv]

Mill mention that it is wrong to silence the expression of an opinion because it robs "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions.

I agree, I believe that such action is illegitimate. Its the same as taking someone liberty away for them. What else would people have left if that's taking away from them? What would happen the later generation?

[Givan]

Mill believes that legal coercion or social pressure should be unacceptable, once an individual behavior doesn't impose physical harm upon another.  I totally understand where Mill is coming from.  We live in a society where, if an individual doesn't live by the accordance of the majority in society it is viewed as going against what’s right, and have now became the subject of discussion or all other opinionated thoughts. I truly believe this should not be the case. For example the entire view on polygamy, if I do decide to have more than one wife why should that be a problem for anyone? Oh I forgot it’s not accepted by the majority in society so this means I should be crucified for it. This is my actions and I should be solely responsible for them. I’m free to do whatever I want, once I do not harm anyone else in the process; that’s how I chose to live my life. What makes you believe the way that you’re living your life is any better than mines. Because I’m different and can careless about what’s socially acceptable shouldn't mean that I should be condemn.   I think Mill is simply saying, one should live their life and allow others to do the same. Unless that person doesn't harm you or anyone else you shouldn't be passing judgment.

[Amanda Murat]

"A democratic republic came to occupy a large part of the earths surface and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations."
Mill (pg2 p4)

This statement was brought to my attention , because it proves that althought the people strongly felt they needed to be protected from tyranny. They were not still at risk having faith in the government as well . The power holders main interest was not to benefit the people as a whole , but to benefit the majority who where active part of the people.

The social liberty and civilization was not being grant as the people assumed . They where actually being cheated of their free will , and being delegate by authority on how should live to be part of society.

[jimborat69]

I was watching the show “The Bible” However I am not taking this through religion but only the concept.  I notice that Jesus helps a person to be a king and the new king should lead the suppress people to justice. However this king will have so much power and forget his only and main purpose is to serve the word of God and the people. The King become too powerful and at the end becomes a tyrant. This keeps happening over and over like what they say history repeats itself. My main point is if we take away everyone’s freedom and give it to a handful people. This selected handful of people will end up as the oppressor. All I suggest is We can never ever give all power to on human being or handful of people. 

[jimborat69]

[vgultyaeva]

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Mills thinks that the more person is educated and is exposed to more things through out their lives the more likely those people to follow utilitarian ideas, they are more likely to be moral. Following utilitarian ideas is more likely to bring dissatisfaction than satisfaction because most people are likely to act in their own best interest while u are taking in consideration their best interest in your actions.

It sound that he is mainly talking about nurture but i think that nature is also important in human nature.
There are examples of people being raised by highly educated parents with high morals, receive the best teachings and observe good examples of what is right and wrong but somehow turned out to be a terrible person or even a murderer. In my opinion nature is very important and decision that we make are based not only what we have been taught is right or wrong but also on what feels true to us.

This paper makes me think of the paper i  have read a while ago. the paper was about that every single person is selfish but there are different types of selfishness. For example some people choose to sacrifice themselves for others which is a good type of selfishness. They do it because if they don't they will suffer. Another type of selfishness is when someone decides to harm others for their own good or pleasure. Hurting others feel right to them and that is a choice that one makes.

Sent from my iPad

[m.inam.gul]

In my previous post, i talked about the importance of self-protection to Mill in regards to liberty. And In class we discussed this concept in greater detail by learning about the harm principle which says the only prevention is by self protection and to prevent harm to others. Where it seems like a rather simple concept Mill thinks it can be applied to various situations. Mill states that you are entitled to your opinions, beliefs, religion, right to unite, and your life pursuit as long as it doesn't harm others.

But i am sort of unclear about what is meant by harm, harm meaning physically, mentally, socially or psychologically? In my opinion i think there can be different type of harms too; public harm could be harm to the society like acts of vandalism, arson etc. And specific harm could be harm against someone specific like assault, rape etc. So i think the notion of harm is a little vague to be able to be applied to all of life situations.   

[Amanda Murat]

Discussing Mill's essay on "Liberty" in class  it forced me to contradict how i felt about the people being mislead ,on actual having freedom in attempt to run from tyrants.

 I feel that people do need some kind of direction to what is right and what is wrong, because the people as awhole make a country ( society), but i do not agree with people being taken advantage of and mislead, with things such as  laws that  sometimes oppress one to do things that may make one happy. They should be allowed to defend their rights , As long as it would not affect others around them.