Analysis Of The Text ' On Liberty ' By John Stuart Mill

In John Stuart Mill’s second chapter in On Liberty, he discusses the liberty of thought and discussion, and more importantly, describes the importance of dissenting opinion. Mill describes that the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race.” (Mill 614). He argues, “to refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty.” (Mill 615). It is important to notice the distinction between the certainty of the public and absolute certainty. Mill absolutely rejects the idea that truths can be accepted without hearing dissenting opinion. As he says,

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

Mill, like Nietzsche, is against uniformity of thinking which results in mediocrity. He inveighs against the tyranny of the majority, which imposes its values on everyone. He believes public opinion stifles individuality, and that society imposes its values on others to its detriment. Mill argues that it is crucial to listen to and permit other perspectives in order for creativity and individuality to flourish. So while Nietzsche might view Mill’s construct as part of the problem, Mill similarly clearly advocates for challenging and struggling against accepted or singular norms of thinking. He argues that “whatever crushes

Mill’s harm principle of ““One should not interfere with other people’s lives unless those people are doing harm to others” (p.G3), is in other words, if a person do not cause harm to others, there is no reason to prevent his/her actions. Mill’s belives that an individual is the supreme sovereign of his/her own acts. Even when the decisions taken may be some harm upon him/her, the responsibility of these actions is only on the individual.

First, Mill pointed out that everyone has their own judgments and no one has the right to decide an issue for all people. The liberty of an opinion is often up for debate because we are all confident in our own rightness, even though that confidence is not justified. “They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (Mill, II.3). Mill pointed out that silencing a potentially true idea hurts society because it is shielded from that possible truth. You never can

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be

“If all mankind minus one were of one 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” (Mill, 2002, pg.14) John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher of the 19th century, and said to be one of the most influential thinkers in the areas regarding social theory, political theory, and political economy had strong views regarding free speech. In his following quote, he states that if all mankind had an opinion or an action, and another individual had a different opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing that one individual just like that one individual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Mill’s

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.

Additionally, Mill also advocates for free speech on the grounds of an individuals safety, more in depth, the physical and emotional safety of a citizen. “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”( Mill,8) Here, it is obvious that Mill advocates free speech as long as it doesn't hamper another being. Furthermore, Mill also justifies his belief in free speech on the grounds of ones mental well being stating “necessity to the mental well being of mankind of freedom of opinion.( Mill,43) It is apparent that Mill asserts freedom of speech is acknowledged on the basis of an individuals safety, both physical and mental.

The criticism of a majority opinion is the value of free speech, in order to have a valid opinion you must accept and listen to the criticism of that opinion John Stuart Mill argues that anyone should be able to exercise their freedom of speech as long as it does not negatively affect or harm others. To specify, Mill states that there is no justification in silencing someone’s opinion, no matter if this opinion is right or wrong, or even popular or unpopular. The ability to criticize an opinion is a freedom that we deserve to have, John Stuart Mill goes into