Mill's first chapter gives a general outline of his central ideas. In the second chapter, Mill examines the freedom of thought and expression in light of a possible restraint on the right of the 'tyranny of the majority,' that is, the tendency of collective opinion to overrun and suppress dissident or unorthodox beliefs. The last two chapters treat the limitations on conduct that can justly be imposed by society on individuals.
One of the recurring themes is that of individuality: its importance, the difficulties in maintaining it even in the absence of formal obligations, and the tendency of society to oppose its growth and development. The notion of the importance of individuality and personality to a full human life he shared with the idealist philosophers. His departure from them, and specifically that part of his argument which praises unconventionality and weirdness, is too easily overlooked when trying to bring him in tune with conformist theorists or with the flower children.
3.1. Individual Liberty and Autonomy
Having put the distinction between good and bad protection upon the right point, Mill deduces from it a formula expressing the limits of law-based coercion. This 'harm principle' is the key to the whole of On Liberty and constitutes the most influential formulation of the liberal conceptions of individual freedom and autonomy. The harm principle reads that a right to unlimited mental freedom is thus secured by transplanting into the legal framework the liberal account of the nature of legitimate concern of the community with the development of the individual, with the difference that under liberalism, meaningful freedom and choice of option are themselves considered not only legitimating reasons for constraining freedom of action but also fundamental aspects of individuality—both at the deepest level of personal autonomy and in the capacity for original thought.
Mill presents his harm principle in opposition to two other possible limits to the freedom of adults. One of these is the interference with the freedom to act in protection of the interests of others. The other is state intervention for self- and others' defense against adult incompetence in managing one's own life. The attempt to justify state action in the service of others and paternalistic action raises some formidable obstacles for traditional liberalism. In its extension to almost all aspects of mental freedom, the state paternalistic arguments which Mill attacks are founded on an optimistic account of human possibilities, more in tune with contemporary empirical studies of the influence of cognitive and motivational factors in shaping opinions and choices. The harm principle does not answer these pressing arguments since the crucial phrase 'by himself' alone makes the protection of adult self-regarding action unproblematic to justify. The harm principle is unmeasurable and indeterminate.
3.2. Harm Principle
Mill's harm principle is distinct from the offense principle. "It is not a punishment for wrongdoing. It is not an expression of censure. It is not a means to a greater good. It is not conceived as a warning or a lesson to anyone else. It is not an attempt to educate. It is not designed to reinforce official morality. It is not imposed on one group by another. It is not based on a contract, implicit or explicit. All are, at best, only secondary justifications for the application of the doctrine." He did not propose radical social change. Nobody was to be injured by words or actions unless they are to inflict harm on others.
Mill did not provide an explicit, exact theory of harm. He wrote, "It is necessary to leave the means of ascertaining to the unperverted judgments of nature which, in all or almost all cases, will admit of question." That is, "The jury, not the judge, is to judge of his conduct and harm." The rightness of the will (lack of necessity among the alternatives). The necessity of the action derives at least partly from an obligation tied to its consequences. The right action will be expected to encourage justice and happiness rather than harm. Its obligation (expected support by others) will depend on anticipated consequences. The responsibility of government is to advance justice and happiness. It has the power and the duty to pass harmful acts to the legislature so that they can be used to stop individuals from preventing severe distress. An extreme example is stopping hunters from cruelly killing animals. No harm to society at all can justify such violence.
3.3. Tyranny of the Majority
John Stuart Mill on Tyranny of the Majority A thoughtful quote from J.S. Mill: “Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. The topic of the tyranny of the majority was a central principle later on by such figures as Alexis de Tocqueville and the American political leaders who wrote The Federalist Papers. The problem is that with democratic decision-making, majorities can and do tyrannize on a majority of individual interests. Of course, this would be a major criticism of both autocratic and oligarchic rule, but political citizens believe that they have shackled their democratic government by a constitution that established the rights of individuals. The trouble is that one majority cannot be permanently invalidated by another; therefore, democracies can never remove this threat. Remember that the American Constitution is really a set of negative powers placed between the branches and levels of government. Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville still feared the powers of legislatures and the “tyranny” of the majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment