Liberty of Thought and Discussion Essay Example for Free

indecorousness of Thought and Discussion EssayJohn Stuart sub John Stuart grind (1806-1873), British philosopher, economist, great lib geological eral (or libertarian), moral and political theorist, and administrator, was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. His views argon of continuing signifi female genitaliace, and be gener every(prenominal)y recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective defenses of empiricism and of a liberal political view of society and culture.The overall aim of his philosophy is to develop a positive(p) view of the universe and the place of humans in it, one which contri scarcelyes to the progress of human knowledge, respective(prenominal) immunity and human well-being. His views are non entirely original, having their roots in the British empiricism of John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume, and in the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. But he gave them a new depth, and his formul ations were sufficiently articulate to gain for them a continuing work among a broad public.Mills most famous work in social and political philosophy, and static one of the most influential works on human dears and freedom, is his book-length screen entitled On Liberty, which we leave alone now summarize, using Mills own section headings. Introduction of the essay The main point of this essay is to argue that the that justification for society limiting the impropriety of an privateist, whether by the governing body or the stuff of public belief, is to pr fifty-fiftyt equipment casualty to a nonher(prenominal)s. If the purpose instead is his own steady-going, or round other goal, wherefore only persuasion and non-coercive means can be justified.Mill believed that an single had two aspects to his life 1) The individual had two aspects which concerned him alone 2) The social beca determination every individual was also an integral part of society. The actions of the i ndividual may similarly be divided into two categories 1)self-regarding and2)other regarding with regard to actions in which he alone is concerned, his indecorum of action is complete and should not be regulated by the state and society, his actions can justifiably be regulated by the state or society..The essay also reflects Mills passionate belief that personal identity is something that should be protected and nurtured. As such, the essay illustrates his disgust at how he believed society squelches nonconformity. On Liberty is just one example of the social and political writings of Mill other works of his include, Considerations on Representative Government Major Themes The Struggle between Liberty and Authority Individuals have often mat up as though their rights were being infringed upon by an overzealous government and have fought for the ability to have their government act they wish.Individual liberties have been trampled on by various governments and this fear of authori ty has resulted in democracies, where the majority of the populate get to decide what actions are lift out for the state. Tyranny of the Majority With democracies, it is supposed that the leave behind of the nation is the impetus for the governments actions and that people are participating in a type of self-governing state. However, says Mill, this is not true, democracies modify a tyranny of the majority where public opinion stomps out the voices of the minority groups and pays their needs and opinions no mind.Mill thinks that this tyranny is the gravest sort, and seeks to find the maximum amount that society can impose itself on an individual spot still prolonging personal liberty. Self-Regarding Actions and Autonomy A person whose actions only affect himself is not eligible to be coerced or punished for his deeds. According to Mill, it is not societys duty or even its right to protect a person from him or her. The only punishment that can result from a self-regarding ac tion is the weight of individual public opinion and the consequence of the actual action itself.The Veracity of Public Opinion There is no guarantee, and even a strong possibility that what the majority deems to be best indeed is not. The majoritys opinion is tainted with motives and biases that shouldnt come into play when deciding what is best for society as a whole. An abridgment of past events, wars, and discriminations can show us that sometimes the majoritys opinion is not rooted in good faith. Allowing the minoritys opinion to be involved in debates and decisions can only be a good thing, no matter what the opinion is. Religion and LibertySupporters of religion tend to view those who are less apparitional as less credible in their ideas for society. Mill refutes this theory and says that phantasmal affiliation should play no role in the ability of a person to make an informed opinion about what is best for all society the truth of matters. Mill points to nonreligious men w ith impeccable morals as proof that religious affiliation does not indicate trustworthiness. Coercion Mill is against societal or individual coercion in all contents, except when a persons actions are impairmenting others.He thinks it a clear abuse of liberty when coercion is used to persuade a person to stop an action that only affects himself. When a person is injuring other elements of society, however, Mill thinks it fine that he be coerced to stop his actions and punished in a court of lawfulness if applicable. Mill also believes that the public has the duty to warn each other about a treacherous person and coerce one another to stay avoid him/her. Societys Obligation Society has an obligation to toss out its influence towards those who are unable to process information and exercise their own liberty in a rational way.Examples of these individuals are children and undeveloped minds. Society has an obligation to children to try their best to make them rational, reasonabl e adults who deprivation to follow their passions and be dynamic personalities. Part of this obligation, one that is shared by parents, is providing a strong pedagogics Mill suggests that there be universal educational standards for all children so none fall behind. endangerment in the Government Mill is very fearful of the power of the government and all his theories are work not to give the government any more power of persuasion or procedure.Mill thinks that governments should not be allowed to make the final decisions regarding its constituency, that rather local officials should be appointed and with the central government advice, but most importantly with the input of all citizens, make the decisions. The Liberty of Thought and Discussion If people are oppressed for holding or expressing an unpopular opinion, there are common chord possibilities. In all three cases, the coercion is unjustified. One, the suppressed opinion might be true. Thats the most obvious case where s uppressing it is unjustified. Two, the suppressed opinion might be false.Even here, though, there are advantages to letting it be aired as farseeing and as fully as anyone wishes to air it. Even when the prevailing opinion it counters is true, it should neer fear the altercate of a devils advocate. Such a challenge can only be healthy for it. Three, most presumable of all, the suppressed opinion is neither wholly true nor wholly false. Only by airing all sidesboth the prevailing opinion and any views challenging it Of Individuality, As One of the Elements of Well-Being To hold an opinion never constitutes a harm to others, and so should never be suppressed.To express an opinion almost never constitutes a harm to others, and so should only be suppressed in ancient, extreme circumstances. Behavior is clearly variant and can often constitute harm to others, thus it is not entitled to the same near-absolute liberty. However, even with air there should be a strong presumption in fa vor of liberty. Any alleged harm to others has to be clear and provable. When theres doubt, the behavior should not be suppressed. Many of the reasons for this parallel the reasons for freedom of expression.Just as expression might be true, false, or partly true and partly false, so might ones actions be right, wrong, or partly right and partly wrong. When theyre right they should be allowed, and when theyre wrong or partly right and partly wrong, its often best to allow them to stand as a challenge to the prevailing approve behavior, so people can best judge all the possible behaviors. There will be no positive change for society as a whole if people are not allowed to experiment with behavior that is contrary to custom and the opinion of the majority.Every progressive, positive change in business relationship that has added to human happiness was at one time contrary to custom. To develop ones individuality, ones capacity for autonomously choosing ones own caterpillar tread in life, fosters happiness in and of itself, aside from the consequences of the specific behavior chosen thereby. Even if superficially it is the case that other choices coercively imposed would have been better, this benefit of being an autonomous person is lost. Unfortunately, in the modern era people seem all withal blind to the value of liberty and individuality.Little is shunned or looked tweak upon more than eccentricity or acting contrary to custom. Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual Every member of a society is obligated to refrain from harming others, and to provide his share of the labor and sacrifices necessary to safeguard and maintain that society. Society has the right to compel people to fulfill such obligations. If the harm rises to the take aim of violating the rights of others, then the law may be used against such harmful behavior.If the harm is of a lower level, then only the force of public opinion may be used against such harmful beha vior. If the behavior is not harmful to others, then no coerciongovernmental or otherwisemay be used against it, and people may only seek to influence it by persuasion. It can be argued that harm to self can then harm others and so should be included in what can be suppressed, but this harm to others is too indirect and speculative. Plus, the individual is generally in the best moorage to know what constitutes harm to self, and so is the one who should make the decisions.Applications non even all instances where behavior in some sense harms others should be suppressed. Sometimes people will be disadvantaged or have their liberty limited by the way other people exercise their liberty (e. g. , one person is prevented from acquire a certain job because the employer hired mortal else), but this is unavoidable and is normally not proper to categorize as a coercive aggression on liberty. Should people be free to obtain and possess weapons and such that are used to harm others?Mostly yes, because the potential to harm is not to be treated as the equivalent of harm. In some cases, an acceptable middle ground should be sought, for instance allowing people to own such things, but property strict records of their name and address, what they purchased, their stated reason for purchasing it, etc. There can be rare cases of justified paternalism where a person is coerced to prevent harm to self. An example would be physically blocking a person from crossing a bridge until it can be explained to him that it is unsafe.Because here youre not really prevent the persons will, which is to get to the other side of the bridge, not to plunge to his death trying to cross it. There can be rare cases where a persons track record justifies intervention before the actual harm to others. If a person has an established history of violence when drunk, it may be justified to forcibly prevent him from getting drunk. There can be instances of offense that are so severe as to rise to the level of harm, and thus justify disallowing certain behaviors in public, where it would not be justified to prohibit those behaviors behind unlikable doors.Generally if it is wrong to use full coercion against a behavior, then it would be wrong to use partial coercion. For instance, if it would be wrong to make a certain thing illegal because its not straight harming others, it would also be wrong to tax it so heavily as to discourage it without banning it outright. Should a person be free to limit his own future self by entering into dorsum contracts? This will depend on the specifics. To not allow and enforce contracts would itself be a limitation on liberty, as would enforcing all contracts (e. . , slavery contracts).The law should seek a middle ground that maximizes freedom by enforcing contracts, but only with numerous safeguards, limitations, and exclusions. One area where some people are allowed far too much freedom in ways that harm others is in the family. Men are wrong ly regarded as having sole authority in their home to deal with their wives and children as they see fit. The law should step in, even coercively where necessary, to ensure that women have the same rights, the same liberties as men.A question that is only indirectly link to the primary concerns of this essay is the proper size and role of government, beyond the matter of its placing direct limitations on the liberty of the individual. As a rule of thumb, smaller government is better, because individuals are in a better stupefy to make decisions about their own lives and resources than is local government, and local government is in a better position than the national government.