WEEK 9: John Stuart Mill "On Liberty" Chapter 1 and 2

[Mateo Duque]

I'm starting another thread for J.S. Mill's "On Liberty." Try to at least read chapter one and see if you can't also read chapter two. Where are turning to the part of the course that delves into "Values." "On Liberty" is a political philosophical treatise on freedom. Almost all of modern political parties (not just the main two) can trace their lineage back to Mill and his "classical liberalism." Try to see how you can apply what Mill is taking about to our modern life.

[Yaakov Bressler]

Mill mentions that laws are set in place to represent society's interests. 

" The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion" (Page 7). 

He explains that modern society does not care what an individual does alone, only the way an individual affect others. If someone will harm others, a law must be set in place to protect the majority. This regards harmful action.

But what if people harm others by inaction? Should there be laws to force people to act? 

The answer is that as long as an individual is harming others, laws must be set in place to prevent it.

The pedestal I built is necessary in order to ask the question, "What is people don't do good?"

Once a person refrains from the dislikings of society, can society force him to take action to do good? Can we set up laws to force people to lose weight, to get jobs, to keep industries profitable? 

The answer, in a liberal perspective, is that such laws must represent the majority of society. Often enough the majority is only what seems like the majority, the rich, and has the greatest representation. If a society is mixed, where half "like" a certain notion and the other "dislikes" it, it would seem harmful to sway in either direction. A law cannot be placed to allow if it would be harming one half. A law, however, can be placed if it does not harm

the half that disapproves.

This is perhaps the mechanism behind what made gay marriage legal. It does not harm the group that disapproves.

[Brian Low]

"Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be there voice. But i deny the the right of people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by the government."

Mills is basically saying to imagine if the government were not to impose their sense of "knowledge", in this case power, over the people. They can only impose these ideas when their in agreement with the people. But he also says that the power should not be enforced by the people as well. In the end he states that the power to govern and control liberty is illegitimate and belongs to no one. To compare it to our modern day generation the government holds the most power over the people, regardless our country being created by the people for the people. Mills basically supposes that mankind is unfit to "silence" others and the government. Same for the government. He also adds in that doing damage to one person will inflict others, which is legitimately true. If one were, to say, bomb a building of course it affects others. Take this and relate it to the government and the people. If one affects a certain rule in the government, it causes injustice directed towards the government and the people below the government. 

Can there every be a government that wont impose their beliefs and doings onto the people? Or will it forever stay as it is now?

[ezlny100]

“Over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign.” (page 1091)

      I agree with John Stuart Mill. Mill argues that the only time society can interfere with individual liberty is for self-protection. Mill states that laws might be for an individual's own good, but it doesn't justify forcible compliance. The individual's rights of body and mind cannot be superseded by other people's beliefs..

    No government or individual has the right to control our minds and bodies. We have the right to decide how we think and treat our bodies. The opinions of the majority should not in any way be used to justify infringing on an individual's right to disagree. Whatever thoughts we may have, we have the right to speak our mind without the fear of being demonized. Whatever decisions we make regarding our physical being is ours alone and should not be controlled by the government. There are modern examples of abuse of liberty. New York City banned the use of trans fats in restaurants. It banned soda in containers sixteen ounces or larger.

    Do you think our government is becoming a nanny state, and we are losing our sovereignty over our mind and body to the government? 

[destinycouturee]

I do agree with you and Mills that the government does pass laws and legislation that interferes with a persons liberty. This relates to tyranny of the majority, in which the majority's opinions, decides the fate of a minority. The problem is that, who is to say that the majority opinion is the right opinion? "there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling"(John Stuart Mills). It is not the governments role to solely protect the majority, but protect all of society as a whole. I like your example of the ban on large sugary drinks in New York City. Although, the governments intent was to provide for the common good, we cannot say that this will benefit everyone. As Mills is saying, it is not the government/societies role to determine what is best for the common good. As a society, it is our duty to govern against legislation that is passed that may interfere with the liberty of any individual. Mills does also write that their are exceptions to this rule. "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"(Mills). The only time a government should be allowed to pass laws that infringe upon the liberties of others, are when the actions of an individual may inflict harm on another individual or community. A person drinking a large sugary drink is not inflicting harm on other people. It only inflicts harm on the person consuming the beverage. To answer your question, I do believe that we are losing our control over our mind and our body to the government. Our government makes decisions and passes legislation on daily basis that infringes upon our liberty.

[mstrose94]

 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 one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. 

 Power seems to be a really important part in the lives of mankind. Speaking here of what Liberty is to people and how people should branch off of it doesn't seem fair. My reaction from this quote was that there was a majority rule in the way that society runs itself. The voice of every man, woman and child should be heard and no just used as a cliché to make everyone feel dignified. True is it that not everyone has a valid contribution to make for their peers, but discussing liberty, there should be at least time and effort taken to give a fair chance to every being.

Totally using an exaggerated example but what if all mankind minus one thought that blowing up the moon was going to help the world in someway? And that one person actually knew that doing such a thing would throw off the gravitational field or something of that nature(i don't know what would happen, just making a point), wouldn't it be right to hear him and trust him? Or is it majority over this single individual? 

[tenzin choetso]

" 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 one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -John Stuart Mill

I believe Mill is trying to say that if everybody has the same opinion and one person doesn't, the people don't have the right to silence that one person anymore then that one person silencing all the opinions of the people. I picked this quote because it's a very powerful statement and I agree with him one hundred percent. If everybody thought the same way, then everybody would be contempt with the status quo. This world that we live in wouldn't progressed as much. The difference of opinion is what makes progress move forward. I guess the perfect example for this would be America. Because America has the freedom of speech, opinions are shared and valued throughout every states. Hence why America is one the most powerful country. While the absence of opinions may create unity, it will also without a doubt create a regression of progress. Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it." From this quote, you can see the importance of opinions. My question is, do you think we take opinions for granted? We always want and seek new ideas or solutions but never opinions. Furthermore, do you guys think that difference of opinion makes a country less united or stronger? 

 

[NatashaPersaud]

Totwatie Persaud
"There is no case of moral obligation in which some secondary principle is not involved"

True. There is always something is involved in making a decision. You might be thinking what if what you're about to go isn't pleasing or will cause controversy. people are not morally inclined to act upon something if they are alone on it. For example,someone might be stealing money from a homeless man and someone might see it but they wont say anything about it unless someone else joins in with them. we tend to always speak up when we know that our voice isn't the only one speaking, same with decisions and actions. No one wants to stand or think alone, therefore what ever we do, there is always something else that tried to contradict it. If someone ask, "would you run after a robber who robbed an old lady or would stay where you are because you rather be safe?"...this is how i view this quote.

 

[Yaakov Bressler]

Tenzin, you just said that America is powerful because of how different everyone is. Some disagree. Some think that America needs to be more similar in order to unite.

 

The great melting-pot of America, the place where we are all made Americans of, is the public school, where men of every race, and of every origin, and of every station of life send their children, or ought to send their children, and where, being mixed together, they are all infused with the American spirit and developed into the American man and the American woman. Woodrow Wilson

 

Wilson detested hyphenated Americans. That being said he wanted such a thing as an ‘ideal American’. According to Mill, an ideal anyone is someone who pursues their own personal interests and customs. But Wilson, a very influential president of ours, insisted that immigrants lose the customs of their native countries and that they pursue American customs like baseball. In all Wilson believed Americans needed to unite to create a powerful nation. Otherwise he saw our citizens as a threat as they would call to arms with their native country, if need be against the US.

I’m not here to disagree with you, just to present an argument. Disclaimer: there are and were many American leaders that agreed and disagreed with the Melting Pot.

Oh, also. I liked your post.

 

Yaakov Bressler

[frankie11214]

Frankie Zhang

“By Christianity I here mean what is counted as such by all churches and sects---the maxims and injunctions contained in the New Testament. These are regarded as sacred and accepted as laws by all professing Christians, and yet hardly one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to them.”---P. 26

Mill says when religious doctrines such as doctrines of Christianity are not challenged; their meaning and purpose may be lost. Most Christians do not reflect their religious beliefs through their conduct, rather by the standard of the custom of their nation, class, or by other fellow Christian peers’ view of them. Moreover, their actions are governed by two sets of guidelines: one from the New Testament and the other from everyday judgments and practices. Christians learn from the New Testament these sacred laws and conducts but often do not enact on them on everyday lives. For example, New Testament gives them rules of conduct such as “that if someone takes their cloak they should give him their coat also” and “that if they want to be perfect they should sell all their belongings and give the proceeds of the sale to the poor.” Mill makes his point that most Christians may believe this, but again, most of them would not enact on these rules of conduct unless they sound somewhat reasonable to them such as a person in poverty would not want to give donations when himself is in need of financial help, or when a person might not give his own coat to a homeless person on the street when he is already shivering in the cold with the temperature at 34 degrees Fahrenheit.

If we believe in these rules of conducts and do enact on them, does it make us inconsiderate and selfish?

[ruksanamannan]

Ruksana Mannan

“Human beings have higher faculties than the animal appetites, and once they become conscious of them they don’t regard anything as happiness that doesn’t include their gratification” (Mill, Chapter 2)

 

In this portion of “Utilitarianism” Mill begins to write about pleasure and what we prefer as human beings. Basically Mill writes that humans are so prone to choosing only what is good for them. They will only base their decision on what is best for them, which outcome or decision will lead them to bringing more for them. Mill compares humans to animals because he thinks that we would never want what an animal has, they would rather want what best for them. Humans want what will benefit them the most, what will bring the most happiness to themselves. He also touches upon the idea that people tend to resort to get pleasure/happiness that is “thought” to be the best rather than looking at what is actually good for them. This idea reminds me of whether people should be happy with what they already have or strive to do better? The idea of selfishness comes to play. In order to be happy, do you always have to always try to get the next best thing?

[ruksanamannan]

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; unhappiness, pain and deprivation of pleasure.” (Utilitarianism, ch. 2, 2^nd paragraph)

 Mill is offended by the fact that even the most educated of us are often time “falling into the shadow mistake” of seeing Utilitarianism as the mere presence of pleasure without pain. Mill argues that Utilitarianism as the doctrine of morality has a broader sense than the restrictive sense that most of us tend to give to it. It is the doctrine of life which goes beyond pleasure, pain, or happiness. Let’s image this scenario for a moment: You are a coast guard and there is a very bad storm approaching. Five members of your family are on an island, and fifteen other random people on another island at equal distance. Both islands are at great risk of going under water and you only have time for one trip, therefore you can only save one group of people (the group of five people or the group of fifteen people). What would be your choice?

A utilitarian ought to go after the larger group because it makes more sense to him to sacrifice five for fifteen no matter who those five represent. Mill’s argument seems plausible as it evident that despite the fact this sacrifice is painful, does not promote happiness, it is what defines a Utilitarian. How humanly possible is it to be a true utilitarian considering the above scenario?         

Ruksana Mannan Response:

            The example situation is perfect for what Mill describes to be a true utilitarian. Mill wants people to be less selfish and think about the greater good; rather than just think about what is best for you. The greater happiness is the greater number. Basically Mill’s idea is to only do what will be good for more people. This is also how a democracy is, do what benefits all of society. I think this idea of helping more people rather than only some is better, but there also is an extreme of that which is also negative; and that is Communism, everyone is equal and everyone is considered. So Mill’s points are viable but there is a negative aspect to it as well, sometimes people have to think about themselves before others. 

[clhj92]

@ruksanamannan I understand what you are saying that Mill thinks we should be less selfish and think about the greater good, that we should make sacrifices for others but my question to you is why? If everything that benefits the greater good doesn't benefit you why would you think this is a good idea. I understand that this is a selfish way of thinking but in my opinion it's also a more realistic way of thinking. People tend to look out for them selfs, now I know in a perfect world that Mill is describing this wouldn't be true we would all care for one another but that's not the world we live in.

[williamesun92]

"They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind and exclude every other person from the means of judging. The refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are sure that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same as absolute certainty"

I believe at least all Americans can agree with Mill here seeing that we all live in a representative democratic country. If "they" (the government) were able to cast aside the hearings of opinions we would then know that "they" have gotten too powerful and the "Liberty" entitled to each American would have been violated. I couldn't help but think of the time in history when the topic of freeing African Americans was a every day struggle. The people in power (Slave owners and particularly whites) categorized slaves as property so therefore the freedoms offered to individuals on American soil didn't apply to them. Whites and the ones in power strongly believed that blacks sole purpose in life were to be manual laborers as well as their property, kind of life a robot you can purchase to do anything you command, and were not considered, Mankind. Hearings were given but practically refused because most of the government believed that they were right to categorize blacks as how they saw fit which could be seen as their "absolute certainty". Obviously this was wrongful and not absolutely certain because the majority of Americans who learn and look back at this time in the past think that these actions were wrong. In fact there may be several things that we consider right and certain today that may be viewed the same way by humanity in the future which is why the offer of opinion should always be entitled to each and every citizen. 

[conis...@aol.com]

"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 one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -John Stuart Mill

 

I believe that this quote is bringing forth light to the current way that we make decisions today in society.  It has made me second guess the usual majority rules way of coming to agreements and I now wonder if that way of resolving issues or trying to reach a consensus should exist or not.  I believe that Mill is trying to show that no one individual’s opinion is superior to the other.  Life isn’t about trying to be in the majority but more so a learning experience where each person’s ideologies can bring forth more knowledge to the future generations.  Mill wanted to show that it is not acceptable for the majority to silence a person who has a contrary opinion to them, nor is it acceptable for that one person to try to silence the majority because they do not share the same beliefs.  This quote raises countless questions about the way we handle difference of opinions in present day.  Is the majority rules way of making decisions effective?  How can we make decisions without silencing the opposing side?  Furthermore, are we satisfied with the current ways of decision making?

[Katrina Castillo]

" We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be be an evil still."

Mill discusses the importance of hearing false opinions, whether we are certain that they are false because there is no absolute certainty in what we consider to be true. I think that there should be a limitation with the adherence to this.  In an ideal society people "assume their opinions to be true for the guidance of their own conduct..." but in reality it is difficult to decipher legitimate opinions from opinions that "pervert society".
 In 1998, a doctor stated the possible link between the MMR vaccine with autism.  As a result, a growing number of parents refused to have their children inoculated out of fear.  Shortly after, outbreaks of measles have been cited in some parts of the United States. It was later discovered that scientific fraud was committed by falsification of data.  In addition, he was also expecting to profit from his investigations.  I do not agree that his opinions should have been allowed to be published without having a high level of certainty because it causes negative implications.  Parents are naturally inclined to be concerned over their children's health and would easily react to such.

Would stifling a false opinion be justifiable if the positive outcome of doing such is greater?

[gabdel7]

"Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one." (Intro/Chapter I)

I found this statement very ironic given that Mill's entire argument amounts to calling for people everywhere to respect, honor, and consider each others differences of opinion and choices without prejudice against that which deviates from what they personally consider to be the norm. Shouldn't this standard of upholding diversity extend to tolerating the foreign customs of other cultures? Don't they too deserve the right to their own ways, without being made to conform to the values of the kind of alien, imperealizing rule that Mill praises here so highly? What he is advocating here is acutely contradictory to the basis of his own theory of freedom and self-governance. I realize that it is of course a bit of a stretch to judge a British political theorist from the 1800's on their lack of regard for the rights of people from what were then known as primitive or "barbaric", as Mill put it, backgrounds. But it is still accurate to say that in his negligence of their own humanity, he was asserting over them the very same unfounded restraint on their personal liberty that he was so disparaging of. Though he seems to have good intentions, his words reek of White Man's Burden. What was normal in the past always reveals itself as having been bigoted by the evolving standards of the present. My question is, are there any judgments that we pass on each other in modern society, without a second thought (as Mill passed judgments on the "barbarians" ) that we may look back on in the future as having been infringing upon and disrespectful of the freedoms of others to live as they please? 

[konfeta04]

“But when they are sure, it is not conscientiousness but cowardice to shrink from acting on their opinions and allow doctrines which they honestly think dangerous to the welfare of mankind, either in this life or another, to be scattered abroad without restraint, because other people, in less enlightened times, have persecuted opinions now believed to be true” (Page 1093)

            Mill talked about not suppressing an opinion from a minority group just because you happen to disagree with it, and there are more people like you who disagree. Here however he talks about how if you are certain that a thought or belief is capable of causing great harm to humanity then you must suppress the belief, and failure to do so is disgraceful and cowardly. While it is a bit different from what Mill was suggesting earlier, it is still in line with his point of view as he frowns upon minority beliefs that threaten the well-being of others. I agree with this notion because many terrible acts were committed as people who could have easily stopped them just stood idly by and let them happen.

[raquel.palmas826]

" A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable of more acute suffering and certainly accessible to it at more points, than an inferior type." (Pg1062) Utilitarianism 

This line follows the example Mill makes about a dunce being perfectly content in  the realm of his own understanding. Here he suggest that different individuals require different means for there own happiness. What drew me to this quote is then the suggestion that Mill makes  that there are superior beings who will want more then the common person. Someone with'"higher faculties"  well what the hell does that mean? This suggestion I think he makes that there are people that are simply inferior to others which I can agree but that doesn't mean they are capable of more acute suffering or are in someway better because they have more then the have nots. The "inferior" as he calls them he cannot speak for because he himself is not one of them. I find this idea to be mildly offensive  he speaks about a lower grade of existence not being enough for someone of "high faculties". While this idea maybe true it suggest that someone is beneath someone else and not seen on the same level and therefore lesser of a being. They are just unconscious of it! I don't think this is at all the case. As human beings I believe we are connected with one another  despite our difference. I think there is a degree of choice in accepting our roles that we have been given and occasionally challenging the to suggest that someone is  comfortable the way they are because they don't know anything else I believe is arrogant. Ignorance is not bliss just a road block that you have to get around to get to the truth.

[David Blinder]

“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression".

What Mill is saying here is that the majority in society often imposes it's own values on the minority. As he points out, there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, once the majority decides to use it's democratic power to somehow harm or suppress the minority, this he says, becomes a very tyrannical act. There is not much one can do to stop such actions because they are perfectly legal since there would be a democratic vote in place which the majority would obviously win because of their larger numbers.

It is necessary then to have certain rights which cannot be taken away no matter the case. Here in the US we have such rights, freedom of speech is the most important. No matter what the minority in society chooses to express, there cannot be a vote passed which would take away their freedom of speech. Thus the majority cannot harm the minority through political and democratic action.      

[David Blinder]

I agree with your comment on the quote. This begs the question : Is morality then, just an idea which we follow just because it is the norm?

It seem that we cling to morality only when we need some sort of excuse or justification for some of our actions. For example, when people give money to charity. Are they giving money to charity because they truly feel like they want to do that, regardless of moral "duty" or "obligation" or are they doing it because it is considered morally right to do such a thing in our society. In other words; does their action stem from a real desire to help or is their action born out of conformity to social "morality" ?

[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, the truth has to be given a voice wherever it comes from. However, what should be the outcome if that one person or the group want to force his idea but does not represent a danger to others? Should he be allowed his own space?

[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 should enjoy their freedom as long as they don't bother and interrupt others. I definitely agree with mills here. For example, We have our freedom to believe in whatever we want to believe, as long as we aren't forcing others to believe what we believe in. A famous pop star, Justin Bieber, posted two photoshopped images of boxer Manny Pacquiao get knocked out during the match. One of the photos has one of character from Lion king Simba, is checking to see if Pac is okay. He added a caption “Dad wake up.”. It is definitely a funny photo! However, Bieber's action violated Pacquiao's freedom. Mills also mentioned we should respect other to improve our society. I cannot agree more!

[simondfchan]

“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.”

Mill is talking about judgment and mental activity here in this quote. Lets break this quote down. He doesn't mean the activity we choose to eat for lunch or dinner. Ultimately, He means the moral choices for our lives and society. For example, Fox News tried to control the our public news media. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two investigative reporters fired by Fox News, because they refused to cover a story that related to millions of our citizen's health. Controversial synthetic hormone widely used in the United States. This method was banned in Europe and Canada to increase cow's metabolism and boost their milk production. Unfortunately, the cows suffer from mastitis, because of this mass amount of production. Mastitis is a painful infection of the udders. Ultimately. it reduce people's resistance to disease. Fox forced them to rewrite the story and fired them. They sued Fox for whistle blowing. Akre and Wilson won the case at the end. This is the best example to prove what is the moral choice. Akre and Wilson knew it is the right thing to do for our society.