WEEK 10: John Stuart Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1-4

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

I hope you got my email, and, again, I wish that everyone and their friends and family are doing okay. 

Friday, November 2nd was WEEK 10 of the course. It was the week of Hurricane Sandy. We went over Chapter 1 and 2 of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty."

 

-Mateo Duque. 

[Beatriz Chong]

“But thoughtful people saw that society itself can be the tyrant-society collectively tyrannizing over individuals within it.” (page 3)

                Mill brings out the points that not only are individuals subject to the tyranny of the government but are also subject to the tyranny of society, which he also refers to as the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling. This occurs when people turn their own ideas into standards that society must abide by and impose them upon people. This can be considered another form of political despotism. I agree that we can very much be influenced by society’s opinions and feelings. These can be associated to what we consider to be within the norms of “normal” or “acceptable”. It depends on how we feel towards a certain action or behavior. If it doesn’t fit in what we consider common, then we may try to impose our ways on the individual just because the majority thinks the same way we do. Mill also argues that our opinions are not based on impartial viewpoints but on our preferences: what we like or don’t like, and how we try to convey it as a valid reason even though we may not like to accept it.

[Dillen Lewis]

"First, the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course, deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all of mankind and exclude every other person from the means of judging."

         What I believe Mill is saying, is that no matter true or false, wise or not, you shouldn't block or stop people from being heard or hearing things for themselves. And when he says authority, he doesn't only mean kings, government, or police, but also parents, teachers, and even friends. Just because you may think that a certain opinion is stupid or a lie or even something that doesn't make sense to you, it will be the same for others. You should let them come to their own conclusions, whether its the same as your own or different. I think of this as the same saying teachers give their students "No question is a stupid question". The student may think it is stupid but it may turn out to be a great question. And possibly their are multiple students in the class with that same question in their heads who are afraid to ask it because they think it is a "stupid question".  

[Dillen Lewis]

"If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unpreformed."

      I think this is just common sense. How would you have progress without challenging your own or someone else's ideas? How would anything get better? How would anything even become invented? I mean, our opinions may lead to danger or ruin, or some other really horrible outcome, but can you imagine never acting on any of your ideas? You would only be doing what someone else tells you to do, basically following someone else's will. A shell void of substance because how can you be you if you don't do things they way you like to? I mean take something small like trying to find a shortcut to work. If it goes right, you earned yourself a extra few minutes of sleep every morning. If it goes wrong, you know you should never take a certain route to work. It may be wrong, but it is a small consequence.  

[ruksanamannan]

Ruksana Mannan

“•mankind are not infallible;

•their truths are mostly only half-truths;

•uniformity of opinion is not desirable unless it results

from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite

opinions;

•diversity ·of opinion· is a good thing, not a bad one, until

mankind become much more able than at present

to recognize all sides of the truth.” (Mill-Book 3)

This quote is right from the beginning of chapter 3, Mill points out these four elements when he defends why opinions should be free. Out of the whole list the part that stood out to me the most was, “their (mankind) truths are mostly only half-truths.” To me, this is completely accurate. I don’t think there is one person in the world that tells the complete truth. For example, a son or daughter goes out to hang out with friends, when he or she comes home, they never tell their mom exactly what they were doing. This does not mean necessarily that they were telling a lie, they say half-truth; they were hanging out with their friends but what else did they do? People tend to include “white lies” basically translated into “innocent lies” whenever talking to anyone, we never say the whole truth because of reasons that vary from person to person. This does not mean in anyway that person is bad because that’s how humans work, if everyone told the exactly and complete truth maybe the world would be in chaos.

[tenzin choetso]

"The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice." -John Stuart Mill

Mill is saying choice making only consists of one's partiality, biased conviction, opinion, etc. However, those individuals that base their decision on their habitude makes no choice, for they are not using their judgements or opinions the human beings are capable of. I disagree with Mill. The "human faculties of perception, judgment, moral preference" conjugates with one's custom. For human, customs dictates their human faculties; not the other way around, which in turn dictates their ability to make a decision. For example, because my custom consist of me practicing buddhism, I make the choice to not kill or eat meat. This doesn't mean I didn't make a choice, it means that I make the choices based on my partiality, biased conviction, etc. Furthermore, I find this quote a tad bit contradictory. Much like how freedom of religion coheres with the freedom to not practice a religion, the act of making no choice consist of making a choice. Basically, if you are not making a choice, you are making a choice to not make a choice...

Questions: Similar to the chicken and egg dilema, which advances first when one makes a decision? One's human faculties or one's custom? or Do you believe that custom dictates the "human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference"?      

[Katrina Castillo]

" The despotism of custom is everywhere the permanent blockage to human advancement, because it never loses its hostility to the disposition to aim at something better than what is customary..."

I do not agree with Mill's statement because it is under the assumption that customs do not evolve.  Customs change through time, by generation and location. Individuals who migrate to other countries are often weary that their customs will eventually be replaced and as a result, some are vigilant to keep their customs pure and free from any outside influence.  But in the contrary, assimilation allows not for its replacement but changes that would better suit the individual.  Religious customs are not exempt from changes as well.  There was a time when Roman Catholics were prescribed to abstain from meat on Fridays during the season of Lent but at the present it is no longer required.  It was determined that the act of abstinence should decided by the individual himself with what he thinks is more appropriate.

Instead of distancing ourselves from custom, should we not strive to improve it and allow it to evolve?

[konfeta04]

“The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (Page 1091)

 

            Mill states that no matter what an individual thinks or does to himself, there is no right given to others to form as a group and force him or her to change his ways on the pretext that they do not agree with what he does. The only time that society may do this is when an individual is doing something to a person who does not agree with what the said individual is doing. He later provides the thought experiment that if one person had an idea that disagreed with everyone in the world except himself, then that group of everyone minus one would not have the right to overwhelm that person and force him into silence or agreement with their point of view. I agree with what he says because many times horrible things have happened in history where minority beliefs were not only silenced or forced to change their opinions, but have been targets of attempts to erase them from existence, and by extension killing the ideas that they held.

[gabdel7]

"He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision. " (ch. 3)

Here Mill makes a strong argument for individuality being something that is admirable, which in itself is a very revolutionary statement. It is one thing to propose that a person who rejects tradition and lives by their own rules may benefit from doing so, and the rest of us should just give them their space and let them get on with it. It is another thing entirely to celebrate and cherish rebellion, to recognize the ways in which it marks an innovate and determined mind. He is likely illustrating that independent thinkers are by nature consequentialist thinkers, and thereby meet his own ethical standards, since they must evaluate the likely results of their actions in order to determine its worth more than the average person. And by classifying a life of imitation as "ape-like," Mill is making the distinction between a man who lives commanded and one who is his own commander. It is a matter of perspective, and a perspective such as Mill's which deems conformity to be robotic and meek could be seen as quite radical. Mill is of course not advocating that everyone should throw caution to the wind and forget social mores or codes of conduct and live out their wildest dreams. He is merely suggesting that society should be more accepting, perhaps even welcoming, of ideas or lifestyles which stray from convention because though they may very well turn out to be good for nothing, it would be an abomination to suppress the callings of the few "geniuses" among us. He is saying that people should have the right to live as they wish to live, if they so dare (as long as they are putting only themselves at risk).The greatest shame is in how persecutory people are towards those who are in fact committing no other crime than wishing to be true to themselves. In an ideal world, such an act would be recognized for what it is, one of courage and capability. 

How does one determine if their untraditional acts are worth the risk when it is the dilemma of having no traditions to go by, and therefore having the consequences made unforeseeable, which makes something untraditional (and potentially innovative) in the first place?

[jeanmalabre01]

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justify in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (On Liberty, Ch.2, p.1092)

This quote of Mill remains me the idea of “faction” of James Madison in the Federalist 10, where Madison think that everyone should listening and respect the opinion of the others even if they represent a minority. I think that this is the basic element of democracy, accepting that the other can be of a different opinion; this has proven itself as the most stable state of governing. Charismatic leaders come to power and impose their ideas to others as if they had received the gift of ideas from the Supreme Being. It is a divine right for each and everyone to have the liberty of expressing their opinion, and to have it challenged. Mill makes the point that neither that one person nor the group has the right of silencing one another; everyone should enjoy his freedom of speech as long as he does not cause harm to others. I agree with Mill, however, what should be the outcome if that one person or the group wants to force his idea but does not represent a danger to others? Should he be allowed his own space?

[andreyy94]

Andrey Dagayev

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his well, is to prevent harm to others.”

 

Mill’s quote that I chose is smack in the middle. Throughout his essay, political concepts of tyranny and the power of the people rather than the individual are discussed. The concept of individuality and how no matter what, no number of people or authority should tell you what to change or why you should.  The rule of tyranny can be implemented through society according to Mill and that this tyranny takes away individuality. Coming from a liberal approach in my opinion, Mill came off to me as a motivational but yet rational speaker. His essay and these 4 chapters felt like I was reading a speech of some sort. Mill believes that people have the right to harm themselves as long it does not harm anyone else. His ideology of preventing harm to the people seemed revolutionary to a certain extent, but I did see something’s that I did not agree with. His idea of custom not experiencing change and the assumption that is a “permanent blockage to human advancement because it never loses its hostility…” is also just not fitting with my beliefs. Mill’s argument on decision-making in humans also seemed to have faults. His idea that we as humans only exhibit our judgment and morals when it comes to decision-making, which is not true in my opinion and that I see it as this: Humans live their life based on individual wants and beliefs. We can choose to follow religion or a certain system of beliefs, but that choice that we always have is what makes us distinct. Our thought processes allow us to exhibit traits of biased and hypocrisy as well. Mill thinks that actions that have no customs behind them are not a choice being made. I disagree with that.  “On liberty” looks at the limitation of the power that can be shown toward the individual through society or authority. A question I would ask would be: “What would Mill say about modern-day government policies and the modern-liberal system of democracy in the United States? Would Mills critique or praise the system and how would it go against his ideas? ( or how would it relate?)

[simondfchan]

“The only freedom which deserves the names as that of pursuing our own good to in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive of others of their impede their effort to obtain it.” p.1256

John Starut Mills is saying everyone can enjoy their freedom as long as they don't bother others. I definitely agree with mills here. According to Mills, its reasonable to do whatever we want as long as we don't interrupt others. I been having this question on my mind. Is it okay to let the government to take control our rights for having a gun to protect our houses? Based on Mills, we have the rights to own the guns as long as we aren't using it to scare people on the street. Ultimately, the government is taking the good citizens rights for having a gun to protect themselves. I believe no matter how restrict the government set the law for gun control, the robbers or criminals will see able to get guns to hurt other people. It also decrease our citizens power for protecting themselves and their love ones. I think the gun control law is taking our citizens freedom.