Topics in Social and Political Philosophy with Professor Mark Colby

October 19th, 2012

Chapter 4 of Utilitarianism

Objectivity of judgement about “good.”
Teleological – end, goal of action “good.” Deontological, right (abstract principle)

The first argument you see in Moore is that Mill is just arbitrarily defining good as pleasure in Principa Ethica.
“Naturalistic fallacy” Mill is arbitrarily defining “good” as “desirable” and this is the “open question” fallacy.
- This has to do with prescription versus description, of is versus ought, and specifically, visible versus desirable.
In System of Logic, Mill says one must avoid the problems of is and ought. Therefore, Mill was aware of this distinction, as he wrote System of Logic before Utilitarianism.
The word “good” designates a non-natural property.
“Desire” is the only evidence that’s possible of the presence of good.

Naturalism and Empiricism

Mill has been called and is both.
The account of logic in empiricist terms, for Mill, logical truth and mathematical truth is a species of empirical truth. (Science)
How do you acquire truth about nature? Observation, deduction, etc.
How do you acquire truth about philosophy? Induction
If goodness or rightness non-natural properties in the sense that they cannot be experienced by any of the senses, then there is no way of knowing if anything is good or right.
The only means we have to determine if anything is good or right is induction because Mill has ruled out deduction.
Mill needs some way to experience the non-natural property of goodness or rightness through one of the senses.

October 16th, 2012

Hedonism
- Full
  - Full, or absolute hedonism is the claim that happiness and the avoidance of pain is the only motivator for people, that there is no other value.
  - If it has independent value, it must be part of pleasure.
  - Everything of value is either pleasurable or part of pleasure.
- Restricted
  - The alternative is restricted or qualified hedonism
  - This is less ambitious, and all the Mill needs, evidently.
- Pleasure
  - Mill is a naturalist and pleasure is a natural state of human mind, it’s natural for human beings to be able to experience mental pleasure.
  - For instance, contemplating a truth or performing noble actions.
  - What Mill means by pleasure is a sensation.
Mill’s ontology
- Naturalism, the elements accepted by natural science.
- Not a reductionist, minds are just as real as bodies.
- Pleasure kinds
  - Sensations
  - Mental states – thoughts of concepts

The dominant paradigm of philosophy of mind is now cognitive science from models from the computer, based on different states of on and off, the transitions which are governed by some laws. In the case of computer, it would be laws of logic, etc. To use an analogy, there is a distinction between software and hardware: just like a thought is not equal to the brain state which gave rise to it, a program model of data is not equal to the state of equipment which powers it.

Fools
- Why are there fools?
  - Poor socialization, education
  - Physiologically, nutrition
- Is the fool blameworthy?
- What makes it wrong to judge value the way the fool does?
- If someone can be a fool and legitimately value intrinsically lower pleasures, why can’t someone be an egotistic hedonist? Someone who values their own pleasure and no one else’s.
- Mill is committed to the idea that there is an objective correct answer about what is more pleasurable.
Ideal of character
- Someone who is physiologically normal and has cognitive function, someone who should be able to derive pleasure from moral equality
Egoists
- There is something that the fool and the egoist have in common.
  1. Accepts the sum (aggregate) of individual utilities. 2. But denies impartiality

November 9th, 2012

On Liberty and Utilitarianism are largely interconnected and a distinction between political and moral philosophical works is not useful and misleading.
the major concern of the book is to develop a theory about the crucial importance of freedom and action.
It is impossible to separate the well being of society as whole from the well being of the individual.
Mill wants to argue that if you want to understand the mature of human well being for individual or society as a whole, you have to understand the role of the freedom of in thought and action in the development of man’s activities.
Because of our nature as developmental beings, we need freedom.
Mill’s doctrine was radical for the mid to late 19th century, but now this is accepted.
if you were to diagram the possibilities according to political philosophy in the last two centuries or so, you have on one extreme the general category of liberalism and on the other, conservatism.
what distinguishes these is the commitment to contrasting values, freedom of the individual, as opposed to social order and stability.
the cornerstone of civilized society lies upon custom a tradition. (Conservatism)
people like Edmond burke defend custom and tradition and argue that human beings are unable to know very much about what can and cannot work about the activities of human beings, but what survives the test of time is proof of what is good, avoids subversive elements.
people who reject the standard values of church and monarchy are trying to disrupt society.
burke would say that society had to defend order and safety by repressing the freedom of individuals.
mill is writing in this intolerant atmosphere.
when this dichotomy begins to develop,
what makes on liberty so canonical is allow room for both freedom and order both liberal and conservative values.
mill recognizes fully and clearly the need for social order and stability and predictability, but he tries to argue that the more freedom we allow individuals, the more benefits society has and the more avidity that society has to provide order and stability and safety and what have you.
these things are complementary, mill believes.
mill endorses freedom over social order because he think the freedom brings about social order
the work is not about political freedom, but rather the freedom of the individual to live as he pleases, under certain constraints.
three basic principles: 1. Liberty, 2. Autonomy, and 3. Harm
mill is writing for a highly repressive and orthodox homogenous culture composed of christians and whites and highly stratified society and values order and stability and is highly regimented and there are extremely explicit norms for everyone to obey a out what now call lifestyle, sexuality, hobbies, private interests,
the cultivation of individuality at that time was struck most of the leaders as subversive
the word that mill uses still has overtones of 19th century attitude about individualism, eccentricity
the work promoted a great deal of outrage and hostility because they saw mill as attack social order by encouraging selfish behavior and private interests, for being different for its own sake in a culture that values conformity for its own sake,
individuals ought to cultivate their selves, the dominant ideology in the west, we live as grandchildren mills doctrine.
what is the major threat? Not political tyranny. It is the tyranny of society, mill uses the term from Tocqueville, democracy in america, “tyranny of the majority”
this is the warning that he and his wife give in on liberty.
that too much conformity is dangerous for society, and that allowing individuals liberty can benefit society and lead to more stability
mill is not concerned with government power as such, but in chapter 5 we will see how to best use freedom for the individual to promote ones own private happiness which encourages the public happiness as well.
the way that mill frames is the stark opposition, the choice that has to be made between eccentricity, which did not have the psychological overtones that it does now, the way that this term is used is someone who is psychologically a bit abnormal, not someone who has cultivated his own taste and values, but someone whose psychological function has violated the proper bounds of normal function.
we have psychologized something that is crucial to the individual
the word diversity is much more neutral
we now take this for granted, the value of toleration, the term pluralism, a diversity of beliefs and lifestyles and interest and the like, reflecting pele’s individualities of peoples characters and interest and outlook and diversity of views and opinions and theories.
as liberalism develops after mills time, it becomes associated with a positive accepting attitude of lifestyles, receptive toward the unknown, toward the novel, the unorthodox, and a rejection the customary and the traditional and the like.
Burke is the “uber-conservative”, god kings, beaugoursie, peasant, serf,
when mill writes about a century later, a hostility towards the novel is deeply intrenched in continental thought
add to this the development of natural faculties. Which he describes in chapter
the way mill characterizes the harm opposed upon society by not allowing greater individual freedom, society becomes threatened by stagnation.
the liberty principle holds that each person should enjoy the same basic right of freedom and thought and action.
freedom of thought should be absolutely
we ought to value the freedom of the individuals.
the autonomy principles dictates how we should use this freedom.
this is meant to hold true for human beings in their full rational state.
this is an application of the role of development
mill sees Britain as civilized because its becoming one of the core values of England that human beings are morally equal
equal rights in the interest of others,
people ought to be treated as equals
everyone, not just males or Christians or the wealthy or whatever should’ve treated as equals
these are conditions that re now being realized in the more civilized community of then19th century, of which the sun never sets
human beings that have mature or developed faculties are now becoming the norm
if you know anything about mills personal life, he served parliament on behalf of the middle class because he believed that the economical and social arrangements of middle class England would encourage everyone developmental faculties aristocracy
you have to consider always everything mill says is predicated on mills view of human nature and societies develop insofar as their individuals development, they codevelop
since human beings are social creature anyway, the more an individual cultivates his talents and skills, the more others can, it’s reciprocal
the point is that mill is developing the limitation of the freedom of thought and freedom of action
one restriction is that it does not apply to children
you must have reached a minimum level of human functioning
this is spry of his naturalism
the human animal is one that exhibits a range of his faculties, cognitive moral, etc, and we have relativity clear standards of forms of function, which children fail to meet those stand;adds, the insane do as well.

Chapter 5 of Utilitarianism – Of the Connection between Justice and Utility (Adapted from)

Can utilitarianism provide sturdy principles of rights and justice? Justice, whose requirements operate in apparent indifference to happiness, is ultimately best understood in utilitarian terms.

The idea of justice
- Justice seems to be an inherently absolute concern, unrelated to expediency, utility, or the greatest happiness principle. We need to inquire regarding this natural and strong feeling.
- Is there any one characteristic common to all modes of injustice? Consider is it unjust to:
  1. deprive someone of his legal rights to liberty and property (unless he has forfeited them);
  2. deprive someone of that to which he has a moral right;
  3. to deprive someone of that which he deserves (e.g., by failing to return a favor);
  4. to break faith with someone, for example by breaking a promise; to be [unjustifiably] partial.
- The concept of impartiality is associated with equality (except when inequalities are deemed expedient.
- It is not easy to see what the preceding “applications” of justice have in common.
- Etymologies indicate that the core notion of justice is conformity to law.
- Even in society regarding matters when we would not propose legislation, the notion of [quasi-legal] enforcement is in the background.
- To call something wrong (as opposed to merely disapproving of it) implies that it should be punished by law, opinion, or conscience.
- “Perfect” duties (unlike imperfect duties, e.g., of beneficence) give rise to correlative rights. An assignable person is wronged.
The Feeling of Justice
- Now we are ready to inquire into the feeling of justice. The sentiment (as distinct from what is moral in it) does not arise from an idea of expediency.
- It has two essential ingredients: the desire to punish the wrongdoer (based on natural or instinctive responses of self-defense and sympathy) plus the belief that someone has been harmed.
- Humans (unlike animals) are capable of extended sympathy and of understanding of how their own interests and those of the community are linked.
- Moral resentment is attuned to the general good (Kant, e.g., is to be interpreted in this way). In sum, the idea of justice presupposes
  1. a rule (for the general good); and
  2. a sentiment in favor of punishment.
Rights and Alternatives
- The importance of rights
  - A right implies a valid claim on society to protect [someone or some group] or to provide some good by law or education of opinion.
  - Rights have utilitarian validation; the intensity of feeling is due to the importance of the security at stake.
- Alternative theories
  - One alternative theory is that justice is independent of utility and discerned by simple introspection–which, however, is notoriously ambiguous and variable and is just as much in dispute as utility is.
  - Various conflicting theories of punishment have a certain plausibility considered in isolation (and perhaps for certain types of case).
  - Some theories of justice place emphasis on the freedom of the will of the agent held responsible; others emphasize the social contract (broken by unjust conduct); others regard punishment as a means to deter unlawful conduct.
  - Views differ on how to determine the extent of punishment–an eye for an eye? Should the gravity of the offense determine it? Should remuneration be distributed on the basis of effort or contribution?
  - Utility alone can decide. Questions of taxation may also be treated from various standpoints–and utilitarianism alone can resolve the disputes.
Conclusion
- Justice is of supreme importance, since it pertains to the most absolute of obligations: the rules against hurting and interfering with the liberty of others.
- To abandon such rules is to regress to the [misery of the anarchy of the] state of nature. Thus [perfect] duties are much more crucial than [imperfect] duties.
- The intensity of the sentiment of justice is explained by the intensities of feeling understandably associated with the components.
- Most (specific) maxims of justice are instrumental to the previously noted principles.
- Equality–except where it is inexpedient–each person’s having an equal claim to happiness–is the heart of utilitarianism.
- And social progress has unmasked the disutility of inequalities and will continue to do so regarding the false “aristocracies of color, race, and sex”.
- “Justice” covers the most useful social rules (which do admit of exceptions). Hence the proof in favor of utilitarianism is complete.

Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government (1860) by Professor Colby

The following are some basic principles espoused in the work and which are in the background of On Liberty. The labels for principles 1 through 5 are my own since Mill does not explicitly label them.

The Principle of Political Naturalism: All political institutions are created by human beings through voluntary agency.
The Principle of Political Relativity: Political institutions must be adjusted to the specific capacities and levels of development of those capacities of human beings in specific political and historical circumstances (e.g., despotic rule is best for a primitive tribe or barbaric culture).
The Principle of Political Evaluation: Government is only a means to the end of human development; we must choose between better and worse means, hence between better and worse forms of government.
The Principle of Political Development: Causes and conditions of good government consist in
1. the moral and intellectual development of the governed and
2. the improvement of the governed (development of all citizens’ potential through participation); hence Mill endorses two criteria for evaluating forms of government:
  - improvement of the moral and intellectual character of the governed and
  - full use of the capacities and talents of the governed. Government should not be a neutral instrument to keep the peace, but an active agency of intellectual and moral development.
The Principle of Political Co-development: Since government must improve the character of the governed, and government must adjust to the level of development of the governed, as the character of the governed improves, the form of government must also improve: co- development of governed and government itself. Hence government should not be merely an active agency but also a reactive agency, responding to changes in the intellectual and moral capacities of the governed.
Mill’s political ideal: direct participation by all in political power and self-government, which is impossible as a practical matter (at least in the short term), necessitating representative government through elected deputies.
Representative government has two defects:
- incompetence: it is not competent to pass laws directly (so it should instead select an elite of specially qualified, non-political individuals to draft legislation it would approve and reject or return such legislation to this commission, and it should promote public opinion to debate conflicting views) and
- its legislation is class based.
Every adult should have the right to vote, but votes should not be equal. Political equality as practiced in America is harmful to intellectual and moral excellence (he liked the aphorism, “Some are wise, and some are otherwise”); mental superiority (measured through educational attainments or occupation) should warrant plural votes. Mill accepts the classical view of politics in which ethics and politics must be integrated and also accepts its rejection of equal political freedom for all citizens.
“Democracy” for Mill means popular sovereignty (the governed are the ultimate source of political authority, as with Hobbes and Kant), direct participation by the governed in their own governance; in popular government (democracy as opposed to aristocracy, etc.), the special interests of a numerical majority displace the common interest; natural tendency is toward collective mediocrity, which extending the franchise would only intensify.
- false democracy (e.g., America): each citizen has equal political authority (one man, one vote), (2) majority rule (political decisions are determined by a numerical majority): tyranny of public opinion, disenfranchised minorities, government of privilege and special interest of the majority, not general interest of all
- true democracy: adequate representation of minorities so that all interest groups have representation in proportion to their numbers (especially the educated, middle-class minority), multiple clashing interests to counterpose the tyranny of the majority or domination of any one group to ensure social progress, elite rules with consent of the governed in general interest of all (the two interests in modern society are capital and labor, which should be equally balanced in the government so neither can dominate the other)
Mill praises the virtues of popular government (democracy) but restricts it: people rule through their representatives; he supports extending the franchise but with qualifications: reading, writing, calculating, and paying direct taxes (not receiving “relief” or welfare, hence not financially dependent on the community); plural voting so that elections are weighted; proportional representation ensures that minorities elect representatives of their choice.
Mill’s ultimate political principle: the good of the governed, not the will of the governed, determined by the mentally superior with the rational consent of the governed.

November 16th, 2012

Chapter 1 of On Liberty

There is an ethnological foundation of Mill’s theories
- Cognitive
- Affective
- Social
You have to start with some conception of the type of target or audience to whom the work is addressed, and what type of ideals they ought to pursue according to the theory.
For Mill, this is Utility.
This is for the beings who have this range of normal functions.
If the theory is going to be a practical guide, then it has to be a guide aimed at the general population.
The theory has to account for why it excludes the populations it does.
Dan: I get this notion that not letting people who are irresponsive to reason into a conversation, but who is allowed to arbitrate this? For instance, someone who believes in homeopathy may be responsive to reason on some issues, but definitely not on others.
- What matters is identifying the different faculties or capacities that constitute normal human nature.
- Before you identify homeopathy as problematic, you need to identify the relevant human faculty, in this case, the human mind.
- If you follow this method of beginning with standard, least problematic cases:
  - Self awareness
  - Awareness
  - Sense of self
  - Sense of others
  - Language
  - Cognitive
  - Memory
  - Affect
  - Social
  - Accountability
- He is not specific about this criteria (Mill), but he is specific enough to craft an answer.
- Dan: I think I also see that is that if you take a 3 year old and a college professor, one will be usually be reasonable and the other will not be, who gets to judge?
- Response: This still admits to a set of criteria which can be used to determine who is under the umbrella of the theory.
- Fallacy of quibbling
- No theory can be complete
- I’ll get in chapter 2 to what beliefs are rational.
- Dan: Under what has be said here thus far, it basically says nothing. All it says is that some people you can tyrannize and some people you can’t, and it’s a nothing statement, it’s vacuous. He gives a qualifying principle for that, but he gives you the criteria to include or exclude everyone.
What should a moral theory look like?
- Should it be entirely a prior?
- Should it be entirely empirical?
- Or a hybrid of the two?
This is a doctrine that provides norms of conduct for a community of civilized functioning adults.
You’re supposed to share these rules of moral conduct.
These are not explicitly named in the book, but they are proper names:
- The Liberty Principle
  - We ought to value liberty, freedom.
  - Liberty of thought and action.
- The Autonomy Principle
  - This tells us how we should use liberty.
  - We shouldn’t use it to conquer the world
  - We should use it to promote self development (individuality), the cultivation of faculties.
- The Harm Principle
  - When the society have the legitimate reasons to intervene, either by force or public opinion
You have to keep in mind something about Mill’s theory which I mentioned several times, which is what you said, his theory is developmental, it’s a mistake to, lets say, classify someone as irrational based only on one timeslice, on one moment in that person’s life, because what’s involved is faculties and abilities, and the faculty of reason is not one which holds various beliefs as true, but rather, it is a range of different skills, forming beliefs and opinions, weighing them, learning about alternatives, and this is what Chapter 2 is.
Belief in homeopathy might be rational in terms of a persons earlier beliefs and later beliefs, this is what makes Mill’s theory hard to evaluate, people are in flux, Mill’s theory is a model to evaluate change in a society and a person, are they developing or stagnating, it’s not about holding any set of beliefs, but it’s about how one holds them, are they up to challenge, or scrutiny.

Chapter 2 of On Liberty

Here Mill attempts to defend the open society, the describe principles about the conduct of the search for truth in a civilized community.
So he says on page 86: > If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.
The need to provide rational basis for beliefs, it is not a matter of tradition or custom.
Just because a belief is traditional does not make it valid or invalid, there is no inference either way.
Let’s say this:
1. The need for rational justification for any belief.
  - These cannot simply be held, they need to be justified
  - It does not matter how a belief is acquired.
  - What matters is how the belief is maintained by an individual.
  - The process of justification.
2. The problems with avoiding the ideal of justification through any kind of inquiry, “infallibility”
  - For example, on page 88, the problem of absolute certainty. > 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.
  - You can feel absolutely confident about going to win the lottery, and lose it. Certainty and any kind of feeling is unreliable and not useful.
  - Dan: I am having a little bit of trouble with this as well.
  - Colby: What’s your objection?
  - Dan: Based on this, he says that, I have a problem with the general point, that your not supposed to stop discussion because of this, that this implies that your infallible. Lets say for some reason, that I let a piece of facism come out. If I let it get out, I have reason to believe that if it does, people will believe it. So I decide to not let this piece of thinking come out. Lets say I’m a lawmaker, for some reason I can have the power to have it coming out at all, and if I do I have reasonable justification for allowing people to read it, etc. So basically, I have reasonable belief to say that I will stop a lot of people will not be Nazis, because I think there stupid.
  - Colby: How do you know that people will become Nazis? Mill says you can not know that. Absolute certainty is not distinguishing from the truth.
  - Dan: The point is this. If I belief that I’m right about believing in something. And I’ve come to the conclusion that Nazism is bad. It’s not assuming that I’m infallible, it’s just that I’m better qualified.
  - Colby: Your fallibility extends to every belief you hold, including that one.
  - Dan: This is that you don’t have to say that I’m infallible, you just have to say that I’m better.
  - Colby: For Mill, infallibility is global. Let me say more. One issue is this. What Mill means by infallibility is that you cannot isolate one belief from the entire net of beliefs.
  - Dan: Not my point.
  - Colby: Let me finish this. All of a person’s beliefs are fallible, as well all the reasons justifying them are fallible.
  - On page 88: > ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd;
  - You have the affects of custom, of blind reinforcement of beliefs that are thought to be true.
  - Rememeber, you have the individual who reacts with society, and the open society is one which benefits its members and it benefits from them, bidirectional. > Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.
  - A true belief is going to be identified with a belief which has been tested.
  - Think of it this way: The search for truth is a collective effort of rival beliefs and rival opinions and rival items claiming to be true. So that you need a marketplace or a public forum in which every belief is subject to scrutiny with no belief immunized for no reason whatsoever. If you don’t know why you hold the opinions you do, then they are being held irrationally.
Let me put it like this: There are five different requirements that are in chapter 2 without being very explicit:
1. Knowing what you believe is true, self scrutiny, self knowledge.
2. Knowing why you believe it to be true, what grounds do you have? > He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
3. What the opposing or rival beliefs are on the same issue.
  - For instance, you may know why abortion is morally wrong, but you need to know why it might be morally right.
  - It has nothing to do with your custom.
4. Knowing the strongest argument on both sides.
5. Provisionally accept whatever the strongest argument is.
  - Reason is a procedural mechanism.
6. Be willing to revise your position based on all sides of the argument.
Hegel argued there are two kinds of circularity, negative and positive, if you want an interesting book, read Rockmore’s Hegel’s Circular Epistemology.
On page 102, > No one can be a great thinker who does not recognise, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.
One of Mill’s other major works of the time period is the need to give women equal moral and political status with men by giving them the right to vote, On the Subjection of Women
Half of the human race is denied individuality because of sexism.
This gives us the foundation for self development.
Diversity of opinions both express our distinct natures but express our process for truth seeking. Why?
1. The existing opinions might all be false;
2. There might be more to learn about them if they were true, to enlarge the fabric of our understanding.
We want to enlarge the range of possible candidates for truth.
It’s wrong to silence an unorthodox opinion because even if it’s wrong it might contain some true, some insight, something that is valuable of it, and so silencing will deprive of what this is, large or small.
You need to have not only rational belief, but you also need vital belief, a belief that hasn’t become ossified into dead dogma, we need to revisit our beliefs in order to make them part of our living fabric.
The need for freedom of expression as a precondition to self development. This is because our faculties require cultivate, the mind is like a muscle, it needs to be exercised, and this is done through the examinations of reasons for and against opinions

Mills On Liberty

Chapter I: Intro.

Need of protection against the magistrate and the non-legal tyranny of the majority. NOTE: the threat of mass-society to individual liberty
Thesis: The sole permissible end for individual or collective interference with individual liberty of action is the avoidance of harm to others (other regarding actions). In matters concerning only oneself, ones right is absolute (self-regarding actions). Over oneself, ones body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Hence, the following sacrosanct: absolute liberty of conscience, tastes, opinion & speech; limited liberty of pursuits and association (no harm to others clause).
Method of argument: utilitarian argument (that is, PU) applied to the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.

Chapter II: Of the liberty of thought and discussion

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

Mill attempts to prove his claim from the first chapter that opinions ought never to be suppressed. > “Such prejudice, or oversight, when it [i.e. false belief] occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one from which we cannot hope to be always exempt, and must be regarded as the price paid for an inestimable good.”
Three types of claims: wholly false, partly true, and wholly true
These freedoms necessary for the well-being of humankind because:
- suppressed opinion might be true.
- even if partially true, the discovery of full truth is easier with an open discussion of it.
- even if the suppressed opinion totally false, its presence is needed to avoid true contrasting opinion be transformed in dogma without knowledge of supporting reasons.
limitations to these freedoms always advantageous to the majority or dominant view.
it’s impossible to set bounds for temperate, informative, non-tendentious discussion. So, anything goes. However: limits in case of clear and present danger, e.g. corn-dealers are starvers of the poor! said to mob in front of corn-dealer house; fire! in crowded cinema
Mill spends a large portion of the chapter discussing implications of and objections to the policy of never suppressing opinions.
In doing so, Mill explains his opinion of Christian ethics, arguing that, while they are praiseworthy, they are incomplete on their own.
Therefore, Mill concludes that suppression of opinion based on belief in infallible doctrine is dangerous.
Among the other objections Mill answers, is the objection that the truth will necessarily survive persecution and that society need only teach the grounds for truth, not the objections to it.

Chapter III: On individuality, as one of the elements of wellbeing

It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are that do it. Among the works of man, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself. Supposing it were possible to get houses built, corn grown, battles fought, causes tried, and even churches erected and prayers said, by machinery—by automatons in human form—it would be a considerable loss to exchange for these automatons even the men and women who at present inhabit the more civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but starved specimens of what nature can and will produce. Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.

Freedom of action is not as unrestricted as freedom of opinion because it is more likely than mere speech to harm others. However, since it’s a manifestation of individuality, it should be protected because individuality is important both to individuals and to society
1. Individuality important to well-being of individual because
  - A. plasticity argument
  - human nature not like a machine, built after a fixed model, but like a tree developing through its own forces and responding to the demands of the environment. We are, in many respects, different from one another.
  - such development is good because it brings out the best in us.
    - NOTE: note Mill’s optimism and his attack on calvinism and dark view of human nature.
  - B. Pleasure/pain argument
  - Sources of pleasure and pain different for different
  - people. Hence, unless people left free to pursue their different interests and ends, theyll miss out on happiness.
2. Individuality important to well-being of society because:
  - genius and spur to change and improvement are maximized in an atmosphere valuing individuality and different thinking.
  - danger of mass-society in which mediocrity produces oppressive custom: in this case, even mere eccentricity is a good.

Chapter IV: of the limits to the authority of society over the individual.

Question: What are the limits to the sovereignty of individual over himself?
- Answer: Society may interfere with the part of the individuals life chiefly interesting society (other regarding actions); the individual is sovereign in that part chiefly interesting the individual (self-regarding actions). Hence:
  - One not allowed:
    - to injure those interests of others which by law or tacit understanding are considered important.
    - to avoid ones share of labor and sacrifice needed to defend society from injury and molestation.
  - Apart from the above, ones freedom is complete because that is the sphere of self-regarding actions. There is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion and that of one offended by it. If we dont agree with ones behavior, we can avoid his company (without parading the avoidance), warn others, not offer him optional positions.
    Examples: temperance laws; Sabbatical precepts; persecution of Mormons because of polygamy.

Chapter V: Applications

Cases in which liberty is unjustly denied because the actions involved are essentially self-regarding:
- restrictions on sale of poisons, opium, alcohol
  - Rationale: these restrictions on liberty of buyer. However, it’s permissible:
    - to require registration
    - to control drinking in drunkard not fullfilling obligations
    - to compel idle to work if not fulfilling obligations
- Prohibition of actions dangerous for agent only.
- Rationale: these self-regarding actions. However, it’s permissible to have warnings (Crossing of safe bridge example).
- NOTE: self-slavery impermissible because contradictory with idea of freedom, which doen’t include the “freedom to alienate one’s freedom.”
- regulations about number of liquor shops.
- Rationale: no paternalism against any group. However, it’s premissible to tax liquor because not a necessity.
- Requests public licences for practicing. However, certificates may be issued as advisory to the public.
Cases in which freedom is wrongly invoked because the actions involved are other-regarding
- Family relations involving abuse.
- avoiding educating one’s children. However, home school ok, if reasonable state tests passed.
- Procreating without any means to support progeny.
Objections to state interference even when liberty not at stake:
- individual concerned do often better job than state.
- even when state would do slightly better, it’s educational and conducive to development that individuals do it: e.g. jury trial, philanthropic and industrial voluntary associations. Moreover, greater experimentation within society.
- avoids the evil of giving added power to the state.
- Rationale: Where state has massive control, liberty exists in name only.
- General rule: greatest possible decentralization of power consistent with efficiency and greatest possible centralization of information and diffusion from the center.

Research for Second Paper

Mill on the Moral Right to Free Expression of Thought by J.P. Day

That there ought to be an absolute freedom and sentiment on all subjections.
That there ought to be an absolute liberty of expression and publishing opinions.
- This is to be decisively rejected for two reasons:.
  1. There are no indefeasible moral rights.
  2. There are exceptions to the claim (as even Mill admits).
- Mill has three reasons for this:
  1. That there ought to be an absolute duty to self-development, which entails a corresponding absolute moral right and duty to self-expression.
  2. The third reason for Mill’s strange view of the moral right to free expression is his belief in the absolute value of liberty, which of course includes liberty of expression. Mill asserts that “all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil.”

It is disconcerting to find justification for the excesses of tabloid journalism in the famous essay of the great champion of Liberty. But that sad conclusion is inescapable.

More about Mill on Free Expression by J.P. Day

Mill there maintains that there ought to be “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,” and that there ought also to be a corresponding absolute “liberty of expressing and publishing opinions,”

1. Mill’s principle of individual liberty: “that 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.”
- a “secondary principle” of morality that is grounded in the first principle of morality
1. Mill’s principle of the liberty of expression: “a speaker or a writer has an absolute moral right to absolute freedom of expression.”
Mill tells us twice that his chief aim in On Liberty is to assert and defend principle (I)
Mill discusses two cases of instigation:
1. saying or writing that tyrants ought to be assassinated, and
2. saying “corn-dealers are starvers of the poor” to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer

Mill, Indecency, and the Liberty Principle by Jonathan Wolff

The interpretation of the liberty principle
- If the way we interpret Mill’s liberty principle naively and simply that the only condition which states can intervene is to prevent the harm to others, then to evaluate the truth or falsity we must look at applications.
- Mill believes freedom of thought it without bound.

There are many acts which, being directly injurious only to agents themselves, ought not be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners, and coming thus within the category of offenses against other, may rightly be prohibited. Of this kind are offenses against decency; on which it is unnecessary to dwell, the rather as they are only connected indirectly with our subject, the objection to publicity being equally strong in the case of many actions not in themselves condemnable, nor supposed to be.

This is “coy and confusing”
What type of acts could these be?
1. Masturbation
2. Self-harm