WEEK 11: John Stuart Mill "On Liberty" Chapters 1-3 (optional: Chapter 4); and "Utilitarianism" Chapter 1

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

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

I got dislocated on where exactly we are in the syllabus. This Friday, November 9th will be WEEK 11. We are going to continue our discussion of John Stuart Mill that we started last week, WEEK 10. Last week, we went over "On Liberty," chapters 1 and 2. For this upcoming Friday, I hope to do a quick review for those of you that were not there. Then, I want to, at least, talk about chapter 3, maybe chapter 4. At a minimum, read chapter 3. Chapters 3 and 4 are not in your textbook. They are available online at: earlymoderntexts.com. Also read the first chapter of Utilitarianism. That is in the textbook or online. It is quite short! I want to introduce the ethical theory of Utilitarianism next time, WEEK 11.

Post here for anything related to J.S. Mill for WEEK 11.

See you on Friday,

-Mateo Duque. 

[frankie11214]

Frankie Zhang

John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism) P. 2

“The difficulty can’t be avoided by bringing in the popular theory of a natural moral faculty, a sense or instinct informing us of right or wrong.”

Mill describes this sense of moral instinct that helps us determine and differentiate what it is morally right or wrong. He continues to say that the moral instincts that we all have only apply to general principle such as his example of general laws. These laws set a standard for people to follow and is based upon what actions are commonly conceive as morally right or wrong. And I agree with Mill’s point. Society sets up this type of guideline for us to follow and if not, we face the consequences of being punish to the extent of the law. Another point Mill makes is we do not converge every moral principles as one universal standard. Certain scenario forces us to rethink our judgment based on our experiences and emotions rather than just plainly look at the facts. Take for example the character of Smerdyakov in the novel, The Brother Karamazov. He was sold at a young age as a laborer to some farmers to work on the farm. From his childhood to adulthood, he was poorly mistreated and abused. At one point, he tries to steal the food that were fed to the pigs and caught and beaten severely. It ultimately shapes the way he thinks because his experiences taught him nothing but anger. Consequently it results him killing old men for their money and squandering it on drinks and brothels. Even reading this sensitive story can bring up sympathy and compassion for this character, despite his wrongdoings of murdering old men. Moreover, Mill extends his argument by saying in general, we all have our own sense of morals and therefore, it is unnecessary to put up general moral rules like saying “bless you” when someone sneezes or helping an elderly person walk across the street. Overall, it is our innate moral instinct that we all have that gives birth to our commonly, accepted general laws.

My question is it possible to see a proven guilty person for a crime with compassion rather than judge on what that person had done? 

[Yaakov Bressler]

Yaakov Bressler

Why would an educated person take a look at a dunce and say “I’m glad I’m not him”? Does not having higher faculties require more to make that person happy?

As Mill says “Someone with higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is probably capable of more acute suffering and is certainly vulnerable to suffering at more point, than someone of inferior type: but in spite of these drawbacks he can’t ever really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence” (Page 6).

He pinpoints this unwillingness to the sense of dignity which people have. This is beneficial to a society that values dignity. Such a society would sacrifice some of their reserves for “the greater utility”. A society where there are clashes between “the greater utility” can stem from the sources of the argued values. Mill points out, that such sources are “pride, the love of liberty and personal freedom, and the love of power” Page 6). America is a country that is united for our love of liberty personal freedom but divided between our pride, love of power or neither. This is what creates the different values that are seen in a diverse unity.

A diverse unity? This sounds paradoxical, well it isn’t, because we’re all part of it. 

[williamesun92]

"Different kinds of personal character should be given free scope as long as they don't injure others; and that the value of different ways of life should tried out in practice when anyone wants to try them."

I couldn't agree more with Mill's according to this quote. We as Americans come from all corners of the Earth bringing different cultures, religions, and values. America is known as a melting pot where these individuals mingle and can openly display themselves which is the small part of the countries famed "freedom". I agree with Mills entirely, believing that every individual born in this world should be entitled to this liberty and should be able to openly discuss their ways of life, customs, and values and that anyone, regardless of gender, race, or any other "differences" for that matter. If someone is happier practicing another religion or agrees with the values of another family or friend they should be able to do so as long as their choice does not harm others. Individuals usually have values, religion and customs placed/forced upon them due to their family, community or other outside influences which is normal but if he/she rather practice other ways of life which they see fit they should be able to do so.

[T Payne]

Tonia Payne

John Mill On Liberty

"One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has character."

Here Mill speaks of the importance of individuality; all individuals are unique and possess many different characteristics that separate one from society. We all have different situations, and as individuals we need to be able to speak our mind and express our opinions. Through developed experience, we are always learning new truths and acknowledging when old truths are no longer true. According to Mill, conformity enslaves people to mediocrity and stifles true genius. I agree with Mills point, when growing up I was always told to "be a leader and not follower" and today I tell my children the same thing. You cannot truly call yourself an individual yet blindly accepts someone else's truth. A real individual always questions the truth and will follow their own path, regardless of what anyone would think or say of them. Yet individuals constantly look for approval from the people around them, whether it's their parents, friends, or spouse. And what about keeping up with the latest trends? For example the iphone, every time a new one is on the market most people run out to get one even if they do not need a new phone. 

So my question is: Can one really call them self an individual?

[clhj92]

Harol Jimenez 

“human beings become something noble and beautiful to see and think about is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in them but rather by cultivating it and enabling it to grow”

In this quote mill states that humanity can be noble and beautiful if it accepts that we are not all the same and encourages individuals to be themselves. I completely agree with Mill’s point of view on individuality here. We shouldn’t all aspire to be the same because it would make this world dull, a boring world to live in we should aspire to be different and unique. I think that is what Mill is saying in this quote humanity can only achieve its greatest form when individuals not only accept that they are unique but embrace it. In my opinion this is the only way you can truly achieve happiness.  In my opinion i think Mill believes that individuality, people being themselves and not conforming to what others say or what society expects you to be is the only way to be free, to have liberty. 

[giazkhan]

"But it is not in the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most, by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy." Chapter 2 "On Liberty."
In this quote by Mill, he is talking about heretics and rejection of ideas. The term is used for people that don't believe or share the same opinion as to what the majority believes in. Mill is saying that the orthodox society which fears and neglects the heretics are the ones who are suffering the greatest harm because of their beliefs by being so close minded since as he goes onto say, that in heretics, you "occasionally see some man of deep conscientiousness..." I agree with this quote and find it interesting because it sums up a lot of what Mill is arguing in his passage. Even though the majority of population mostly feels that what they believe is right and their point is valid, this ends up leading many times to ignorance. As time moves on, the beliefs tend to change and what was right some time ago seems to be wrong now. So, what does this mean? It means that no opinion or argument is always going to stay valid forever so it is always worth looking at other side instead of fearing it. So, in this case when a minority or rather an unpopular group like heretics have something to contribute, it is worth considering at least taking a look at it.

[mstrose94]

"That 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." (JS Mill,Ch1)

Mill portrays the point that man as a species is entitled to be free and removed from the grasp of any leader. All people are said to be free and equal to the point where they can act on their own will. Living without punishment is a hard burden to live by. Human beings by nature are violent and are always trying to gain an upper hand on each other no matter the outcome. With Mills views it seems that power would always have to be exercised. No matter the case, there will always be a moment when or where some person wants to do something to better their life. If the reason isn't to better themselves it could be revenge or indifference, both leads to a possible harm. An example that comes to mind is spiderman. When Parker decided to let the robber get away with the money because he wanted revenge, the robber ended up being the murderer of his uncle. 

How would you have a community where power or authority could be disregarded? When would that be possible in reality?

[rachel.zoldan23]

Rachel Zoldan

 

John Stuart Mill On Liberty chapter 3

 

"That so few dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time"

 

As individuality develops, each person becomes more valuable to themselves and others.  Without individuality there is no growth in society since the nonconformists are the ones who discover new things that benefit others.  According to Mill, the tyranny of opinion makes eccentricity unacceptable.  The majority are satisfied with customary ways of society. Individuality is essential, but it is not viewed that way.  Society shouldn't have to live by either one or few patterns.  If each person was able to lay out his own pattern of living, liberty and progress would not be stifled.  I agree with Mill on this point.  Although nonconformity sounds as if it is an act of rebellion, it shouldn't be judged by its rebellious nature, but rather by its effect on society.  There are many cases in history when nonconformist ideas had positive effects.  For example, Socrates had ideas that were too radical for his time so he was executed, but today we value his ideas as important contributions.  While the nonconformists are unheard or admonished, the majority have the strong opinion and don't realize that eccentricity lets one live their life as an individual.

 

 

[Beatriz Chong]

“In our class of society down to the lowest, everyone lives as though under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship” (page 39).

Mill mentions that during a certain time, people used to have their individual energy. They would act on their desires and impulses without caring much about the restrictions applied upon them. So, there were laws implemented to maintain order and take that power away from men. As a result, everybody became in a sense- homogenous, with absolutely no sense of individualism; people would conform to what the rest did, and could no longer have an opinion that wasn’t the same as everybody else’s. Although it sounds as if we are prisoners who don’t have liberty to do what we desire, I think it is necessary in order to have security. It is the same idea of yelling “Fire” in a movie theater. The safety of society is more important than the liberty of expression of an individual. There has to be some give up in order to have security.  However, Mill also brings out the point that it is one thing to refrain individual rights for the sake of others’ wellbeing but it is different to be limited on one’s rights just because others don’t like your opinion or disagree with you. We notice these kinds of situations very often when someone’s freedom of speech or expression is limited in order not to offend others. However, how is it determined whether one’s freedom of speech should be allowed or not?

[szeswitz]

In most cases, I would agree that there needs to be some sacrifice of liberty for the sake of safety, but I'm starting to think that argument is all too often exploited. Regardless of the scale, we should really consider the long term costs of abandoning civil liberties in the name of safety. 

Shortly after 9/11, there was a ton of unconstitutional legislation passed that violated civil liberties of US citizens on an international scale. Now any US agency could potentially spy on it's own citizens and scrutinize the most arbitrary of actions, all in the name of national security. Of course you could say that these tactics by govt agencies like the TSA and NSA, or legislation like the Patriot Act are doing their jobs because there has been no more terrorist attacks on a scale like WTC, but at what cost? 

[Liz Lovejoy]

"Different kinds of personal character should be given free scope as long as they don't injure others; and that the value of different ways of life should tried out in practice when anyone wants to try them (page 36)"

I agree with Mill that people should have the freedom to do as they please as long as they are not harming others. Individuals have values, religion, and customs placed upon them by their family, friends, or community, but if they rather practice a different way of life, they should be free to do so. The quandary arises when one asks what harms another either physically or emotionally. If one smokes cigarettes is he indirectly harming another? If one gets an abortion is she physically harming another? If one denies the holocaust, is he emotionally harming another? The liberty of an individual to live as he sees fit is limited by what society lawfully determines is injurious to another. In essence, the law defines what constitutes harmful behavior, and thus harmful behavior must be stopped by active interference.

Do you think different kinds of personal character should be given free scope if they are injuring only themselves?

[Brian Low]

"whatever can be proved to be good must be so by being shown to be means to something admitted to be good without proof."

I have to agree with Mills on what he says here. He's basically saying the good need to be proven good without any proof. It sounds crazy but here are some examples. Mills talks of how the medical science of this world is shown to be good for health, but does health have to be necessarily good? It's been proven that health is imperative if we want to live in this world so that statement makes sense. Another example would be when Mills states that music gives us pleasure so it's good, but does that mean the pleasure given is good? It makes a lot of sense because we can't really know what's good or what's bad. I'd assume we'd instinctively think certain things are good but in reality they can be bad. Take my example. We take medicine to make us better, to cure an infection perhaps. We perceive it as good because we think it would help. Unknowing to us the medicine has a side affect and creates a greater problem. From there we would have no proof that the medicine be "good". It would have to be proven that it's good without proof. Its a bit confusing but the main point is that we can never really prove that anything is "good". Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I think.

[tenzin choetso]

"There is confessedly a strong tendency in the modern world towards a democratic constitution of society, accompanied or not by popular political institutions."- John Stuart Mill (Chapter 4)

Mill is stating that in these modern times, lies a great aptness for democracy with or without the support of popular political instituions. I agree with Mill. Although Mill wrote this around 1860, this quote still resonates in 2012. Currently there are several countries fighting for democracy, countries like: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc. Aristotle once said, "Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal." What this means is that democracy stems from the shared convictions of men that they are equal in every way in every regard. Countries that want to reform to democracy are usually conflicted with tyrants and the presence of inequality. Most men want to be equal and democracy is the closest thing to equality. While there are many faults within democracy, there are also many positive things within democracy.  

Question: Do the countries mentioned above truly want democracy for their beliefs or are they influenced by the involvement of America?

[konfeta04]

“Ethics has been not so much a guide to men in forming their moral views as a consecration of the views they actually have; but men’s views…are greatly influence by what effects on their happiness they suppose things to have.” Utilitarianism (Page 2)

 

This is a quote by Mill from Utilitarianism that describes how the greatest happiness principle applies to all schools of ethical thought. The decisions that human beings make on a regular basis are very highly influenced by the happiness that they acquire or give to others from the decision. Regardless of the intent behind an action if it gives the most happiness to the most people it is considered to be ethical. If the intent behind an action is for deceit or for some sense of self-fulfillment then is an act that generates happiness for many people still ethical?