On Liberty
By John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill is an English philosopher and political economist, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an advocate of Utilitarianism, it is usually suggested that Mill is an advocate of negative Liberty, However this has been contested by many academics. John Stuart Mill was given extremely rigorous, some would say harsh, ubringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his siblings.
Mill’s On Liberty is one of the founding texts on Liberalism and one of the most important treatises ever written on the concept of Liberty. He wrote that he believed On Liberty to be about “the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.” The book also explores the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm of principle. The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then the society has no right intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming itself.
Mill’s argument proceeds in five chapter, in first chapter, he provides a brief overview of the meaning of Liberty. His next two chapters detail why liberty of opinion and Liberty of action are so valuable. His fourth chapter discusses the appropriate level of authority that society should have over the individual. His fifth chapter looks at particular examples and applications of theory, to clarify the meaning of his claims.
In the first chapter Mill starts by limiting the scope of his essay to civil or Social Liberty. He writes that his essay will look at what kind of power society can legitimately exert over the individual. Because he thinks, human beings are living in more civilized stage of development, so that it must be presented in a new conditions of individual Liberty.
The concept of liberty is considered to be develop in ancient Greece, Rome and England, liberty implied “protection against the tyranny of political rulers.”and rulers and subjects were often thought to have a necessarily antagonistic relationship. The leader didn’t govern by the will of his people, and while his power was seen as necessary, it was also considered dangerous. Patriots tried to limit the leader’s power in two ways; (1) they gained immunities called “political liberties or rights.” The leader was thought to have a duty to respect these immunities, and there was a right of rebellion of these rights and liberties were infringed. (2) Constitutional checks developed, under which the community or their representatives gained some power of consent over important acts of governance.
Then Mill describes a civilization as a struggle between society and individual about which should have control over the individual’s actions. He says that society ,through laws and public opinions, has far more power over the actions and thoughts of an individual than an individual has over himself. He rejects and argues that society should have control over only those actions that directly affect it, or those actions that harm some of it members. Because, of (these) the individual harming himself or acting against his own good, it doesn’t mean that other should interfere in his actions. It is important to note that in rejecting social interference with individual or a group can’t rightly punish a person’s behavior by treating him as an enemy, of his actions only affect himself. But, if his actions affect others, other only can punish his behavior. It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him, Mill writes “0ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” So, Mill divides the appropriate sphere of human liberty into 3 categories, the liberty of individual thought and opinion, the liberty of tastes and pursuits, the liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that doesn’t harm others.
Freedom of thought and opinion are the issues which Mill looks exclusively. He says , it is right to limit somebody]
‘s expression of opinions either through their government or by their own. Even if one stated a particular opinion, other shouldn’t have right to silence him. Silencing these opinions is wrong, because it robs,” the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation” says Mill. We can never sure that a silenced opinion contains some element of the truth. He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First individuals are more likely to abandon erronous beliefs if they are engaged in open exchange of ideas. Second by forcing other individuals to re-examine, and re affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.
Then Mill gives reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions, the first argument is that the opinions which are suppressed maybe true. Since (human) “to err is human feature,” they have no authority to decide on issue for all people and give only their judgements. He asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is often in danger in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, not taking consideration the world of infallibility they live in. So, Mill argues that the suppressed opinion maybe true and will bring up some essential points. First, it highlights that moral truths do exist. He is not saying that all the opinion are true and valid. Rather, he is simply saying that any simple idea might be true, and therefore, no idea can be dismissed, since truth is a boon to progress. Second, the government should have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only, bad men would try to undermine these beliefs. He says that we should debate the opinion even though it is wrong and useless. For instance, in the past people have been persecuted for what is now believed to be true. Mill gives examples about Socrates and Jesus Christ, who were put to death for blasphemy because their beliefs were radical for their times. Thirdly, Mill considers that truth maybe justifiably persecuted, because persecution is something that truth should have to face and it will always survive. He says that it is unfair for those who have true ideas, which could be or are a great service to humanity, those true ideas must be valued and taken into constituate, that it is wrong to assume that the truth always triumph over persecution. It may take centuries for truth to reemerge after it is suppressed. As on example, Mill gives the reformation of the Chatolic Church was put down twenty times before Martin Luther was successful. Finally it is worth thinking about the importance of Mill’s assumption in the existence of truth to his justification for freedom of opinion. If no one could be wrong or right, would this require tolerance and respect of difference, or would the strongest opinion simply try to defeat all others. Mill doesn’t try to answer this question, because the existence of truth is assumed throughout. However, thinking about such issues is important in seeing how persuasive Mill can be to people who do not share all of his assumptions.
Then, Mill takes the issue of liberty of thought and discussion. If people hold a true opinion they will benefit from hearing dissenters argue against that opinion. He thinks that most people only know partial truths and they might benefit from other fragments of truth, this discussion reflects a particular conception of how people learn. People learn through debate and through having their opinions challenged, thus, dissenting opinions are socially useful because they help people to understand the real strenght and limitations of their own. So, if the true opinion is not debated and discussed, the meaning of the opinion itself maybe lost.
Concluding, it is important to pay attention of to opinions of individual who can be right if the issue is discussed and debated. If the opinion and actions are not affecting others. It will be unfair to punish the individual, with whom it would be better to discuss the issue. Finally, Mill in his essay express liberty to the ability to progress and avoid social stagnation through liberty of opinion and liberty of action which is first, it is valuable for two main reasons, one, the unpopular opinion may be right. Two, if the opinion is wrong, refuting it will allow people to better understand their own opinions. Second, it is desirable for parallel reasons. The nonconformist, may be correct, or she may have a way of life that best suits her needs.
John Stuart Mill is an English philosopher and political economist, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an advocate of Utilitarianism, it is usually suggested that Mill is an advocate of negative Liberty, However this has been contested by many academics. John Stuart Mill was given extremely rigorous, some would say harsh, ubringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his siblings.
Mill’s On Liberty is one of the founding texts on Liberalism and one of the most important treatises ever written on the concept of Liberty. He wrote that he believed On Liberty to be about “the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.” The book also explores the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm of principle. The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then the society has no right intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming itself.
Mill’s argument proceeds in five chapter, in first chapter, he provides a brief overview of the meaning of Liberty. His next two chapters detail why liberty of opinion and Liberty of action are so valuable. His fourth chapter discusses the appropriate level of authority that society should have over the individual. His fifth chapter looks at particular examples and applications of theory, to clarify the meaning of his claims.
In the first chapter Mill starts by limiting the scope of his essay to civil or Social Liberty. He writes that his essay will look at what kind of power society can legitimately exert over the individual. Because he thinks, human beings are living in more civilized stage of development, so that it must be presented in a new conditions of individual Liberty.
The concept of liberty is considered to be develop in ancient Greece, Rome and England, liberty implied “protection against the tyranny of political rulers.”and rulers and subjects were often thought to have a necessarily antagonistic relationship. The leader didn’t govern by the will of his people, and while his power was seen as necessary, it was also considered dangerous. Patriots tried to limit the leader’s power in two ways; (1) they gained immunities called “political liberties or rights.” The leader was thought to have a duty to respect these immunities, and there was a right of rebellion of these rights and liberties were infringed. (2) Constitutional checks developed, under which the community or their representatives gained some power of consent over important acts of governance.
Then Mill describes a civilization as a struggle between society and individual about which should have control over the individual’s actions. He says that society ,through laws and public opinions, has far more power over the actions and thoughts of an individual than an individual has over himself. He rejects and argues that society should have control over only those actions that directly affect it, or those actions that harm some of it members. Because, of (these) the individual harming himself or acting against his own good, it doesn’t mean that other should interfere in his actions. It is important to note that in rejecting social interference with individual or a group can’t rightly punish a person’s behavior by treating him as an enemy, of his actions only affect himself. But, if his actions affect others, other only can punish his behavior. It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him, Mill writes “0ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” So, Mill divides the appropriate sphere of human liberty into 3 categories, the liberty of individual thought and opinion, the liberty of tastes and pursuits, the liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that doesn’t harm others.
Freedom of thought and opinion are the issues which Mill looks exclusively. He says , it is right to limit somebody]
‘s expression of opinions either through their government or by their own. Even if one stated a particular opinion, other shouldn’t have right to silence him. Silencing these opinions is wrong, because it robs,” the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation” says Mill. We can never sure that a silenced opinion contains some element of the truth. He also argues that allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. First individuals are more likely to abandon erronous beliefs if they are engaged in open exchange of ideas. Second by forcing other individuals to re-examine, and re affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.
Then Mill gives reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions, the first argument is that the opinions which are suppressed maybe true. Since (human) “to err is human feature,” they have no authority to decide on issue for all people and give only their judgements. He asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is often in danger in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, not taking consideration the world of infallibility they live in. So, Mill argues that the suppressed opinion maybe true and will bring up some essential points. First, it highlights that moral truths do exist. He is not saying that all the opinion are true and valid. Rather, he is simply saying that any simple idea might be true, and therefore, no idea can be dismissed, since truth is a boon to progress. Second, the government should have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only, bad men would try to undermine these beliefs. He says that we should debate the opinion even though it is wrong and useless. For instance, in the past people have been persecuted for what is now believed to be true. Mill gives examples about Socrates and Jesus Christ, who were put to death for blasphemy because their beliefs were radical for their times. Thirdly, Mill considers that truth maybe justifiably persecuted, because persecution is something that truth should have to face and it will always survive. He says that it is unfair for those who have true ideas, which could be or are a great service to humanity, those true ideas must be valued and taken into constituate, that it is wrong to assume that the truth always triumph over persecution. It may take centuries for truth to reemerge after it is suppressed. As on example, Mill gives the reformation of the Chatolic Church was put down twenty times before Martin Luther was successful. Finally it is worth thinking about the importance of Mill’s assumption in the existence of truth to his justification for freedom of opinion. If no one could be wrong or right, would this require tolerance and respect of difference, or would the strongest opinion simply try to defeat all others. Mill doesn’t try to answer this question, because the existence of truth is assumed throughout. However, thinking about such issues is important in seeing how persuasive Mill can be to people who do not share all of his assumptions.
Then, Mill takes the issue of liberty of thought and discussion. If people hold a true opinion they will benefit from hearing dissenters argue against that opinion. He thinks that most people only know partial truths and they might benefit from other fragments of truth, this discussion reflects a particular conception of how people learn. People learn through debate and through having their opinions challenged, thus, dissenting opinions are socially useful because they help people to understand the real strenght and limitations of their own. So, if the true opinion is not debated and discussed, the meaning of the opinion itself maybe lost.
Concluding, it is important to pay attention of to opinions of individual who can be right if the issue is discussed and debated. If the opinion and actions are not affecting others. It will be unfair to punish the individual, with whom it would be better to discuss the issue. Finally, Mill in his essay express liberty to the ability to progress and avoid social stagnation through liberty of opinion and liberty of action which is first, it is valuable for two main reasons, one, the unpopular opinion may be right. Two, if the opinion is wrong, refuting it will allow people to better understand their own opinions. Second, it is desirable for parallel reasons. The nonconformist, may be correct, or she may have a way of life that best suits her needs.
posted by fitrie at 2:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home