Analysis Of ' On Liberty ' Essay

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

The existence of “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” (Mill 4) also constrains an individual’s personal liberty. In On Liberty, Mill wrote that “the mass do not now take their opinions from “the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves” (63). Mill believed that the majority in the society tends to impose their own ideas and practices onto other people. This will eventually cause the minority opinion to be completely omitted and silenced. Moreover, the majority is not guaranteed to be correct, and could not be falsified as result of no open discussion or debate. This lack of discussion could only fetter and hinder the development and the formation of character. Mill wrote “However unwilling a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living” (34). In a society where dead dogmas are prevalent, no individuals can obtain complete freedom. This is because no one will have the courage to challenge and circulate new and original ideas that can help them achieve liberty. The members of the society will live in a world where no one will construct new ideas, and no one will discover and spread the ultimate truths. Instead, the people will cling

Firstly, Mill believes that individual liberty is instrumental in the attainment of truth. No one can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a definite truth. Falsehoods are often sprinkled with specks of truth; and truth may exists as half-truths held by different people, and it is only through controversy that the truth in the parts can be unified into a larger canvas of the ultimate truth. If one's actions were to be censored completely, society would lose those specks of truth amongst the falsehoods, which would be disadvantageous to society.

The American Ideological Consensus is that “…the American people have shared much of the same ideals, the same basic principles, and the same patterns of belief” (McClenaghan 104). When America filled itself with ideologically homogenous people, their beliefs started to define our nation and became American identities. If asked what they think of America, peoples of other nations would say that the roads are made of glass, opportunity is in the air, and civil rights are plentiful. These accounts maybe accentuated; however, the underlying message is that the American people have more freedoms then the peoples of other nations do. The most widely known American identity is freedom, and even though that American identity has been tried and

It should be noted, however that some have suggested that Mill have overstates the threat and tyranny of the majority and understated the threat posed by the government. An important distinction that Mill does not address; the different ways the freedoms are destroyed by the government versus tyranny of the majority. Government’s who maintain a monopoly of legitimized force within a certain area coarse individuals with force and any individual that dictates other government faces imprisonment or even death, however, the tyranny of the majority must use criticism and ostracism to impose their way of living on others, as much is easier for someone to ignore the tyranny of the majority then it is for them to ignore the tyranny of a government. However, had Mill lived to see the atrocities committed by utilitarian government in the 20th century; his opinion on the relative threats of the government versus tyranny of the majority may have been different. Mill did not think individual should be completely free to do exactly what they want without any restraint.

To begin with, although Mill states in On Liberty that he considers “utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions”, the rest of the book contradicts his writings on Utilitarianism (Mill, 15). First, in Utilitarianism Mill emphasizes the principle of utility, also known as the greatest happiness principle (Mill, 133-134). In other words, the desired actions are ones which ensure the greatest happiness for the most people possible. However, this greatest happiness principle could, also, according to Mill, be considered as an evil that “requires society to be on its guard” (Mill, 8). In chapter one of On Liberty, Mill warms about the “tyranny of the majority”, therefore; the contradiction lies in the fact that what makes the most people happy is considered right (Mill, 8). In some cases, the view of the majority can be harmful and according to that, an individual view can be silenced and the greatest happiness principle will enforce the tyranny of the majority. More importantly, when examining the liberty of thought and discussion in chapter two of On Liberty, using the example of silencing mankind and silencing one man, Mill makes it clear that individual liberty and rights, as long as no harm is being committed on others, are more important than making the greatest number of people happy as he says: “if the opinion is right… produced by its collision with error” (Mill, 21).

John Stewart Mill in his essay On Liberty asserts the principle of the individual and how society is entitled to govern the individual in the way of compulsion in control. Mill discusses the Harm Principle, The tyranny of the majority, freedom of speech and how liberty is a driver of progress to make his assertion. However, there are many criticisms of his argument due to the fact harm is not defined and that it is extremely ambiguous.

According to Mill, the biggest obstacle to freedom is the tyranny of the majority in the form of despotism of custom and societal pressure. Mill established that limits had been placed on power in the past, but this was only upon the ruler or sovereign. This was brought about by the ideas of thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. But

He presumed that people had enough knowledge and discernment to make moral choices that they could live with. The individual and their personal reflection of right or wrong decided their moral standards. Mill also noted that people had a desire to be accepted by society and they have a fear of being disapproved. Mill believed government should intervene only when one individual may hurt another. People have the freedom to hold and express their own opinions, which would deny the government the ability to choose a majority over a minority. In this government their authority would be limited in its ability to intervene unless an individual was harming another.

Having a government try to make the best decisions for everyone is the same as using Mill’s main belief. The best action is the one that will benefit the most amount of people. If there is an action that will influence only one person or a certain group of people, then it is probably not the best decision and the people should suppress their opinion. We are always told to do the best for ourselves and others. According to Mill, we need to do the best for the greatest amount of people. Having an individual keep their opinions or idea to themselves will lead to a benefit for more people. For example, an individual believes that including more healthy options on college campuses will help eating disorders among the younger age group. Letting a school director express this opinion will lead to a benefit in many students across campus. This shows how people should make decisions based on how many people will be positively affected by the decision made. Mill argues that there are higher and lower pleasures

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they

e opinion was: (a) the truth, or (b) false. In either case, humanity suffers because it is something that could have been prevented if all opinions were deemed of value. (Mill, On Liberty, p. 31). If the opinion turned out to be true, the current generation, as well as future generations, are thereby deprived of authenticity. Individuals who decide to censor the opinions of others have no authority to do so. Humans are fallible by nature, therefore, cannot assume that “their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty (Mill, On Liberty, p. 32)” simply because they do not want to entertain the opinion. However, if the opinion that was silenced is proven false, society is hurt nonetheless. If a falsehood is stifled, society is losing

The argument Mill makes is characterized by a few premises. The first is that society is known to enforce opinions and beliefs upon the individual in hopes of maintaining a utilitarian good based upon a common set of truths that the society believes in. Due to this, individual liberty is often suppressed for the good of everyone else. When someone has dissenting views, they will be suppressed by the majority. Yet Mill’s believes that dissent is good because it helps to progress society by disconfirming our believes through listening and reasoning with those who are different. By addressing different views, people are able to develop their own ideas and as a society we are able to reach a better understanding of a utilitarian truth. For Mill, humans are not

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.