Mill, On Liberty - Chapter 3 (Individuality)

Mill’s Doctrine of Free Speech

◦ Free speech is the practical consequence of our fallibility.

◦ Doctrines must be kept alive through challenge and defense.

◦ Free speech itself must be a live doctrine.

> “I have a right to free speech” is never the final defence of speech.

> It is always: “my speech, even if false, contributes to truth, the

fullness of truth, and valuable discussions”

Free action?

> Speech is much more unconstrained than actions.

◦ Mill’s Harm Principle:

> An individual’s freedom can be restricted only and exactly to the extent as it is required to prevent harm to others.

◦ Free speech is needed to figure out what is harmful.

> This is why speech itself cannot be so-restricted.

> But restricting action is not similarly self-undermining

◦ Does not conflict Greatest Happiness because the Harm Principle is itself ensuring that happiness can be attained under uncertainty.

Harmful speech

◦ What about speech that, while not directly harming, is advocating for harm.

> For anything that the Harm Principle forbids in action, Free Speech

permits its advocacy.

◦ Advocacy must be tolerated.

> Arguing against it will make us realize the truth in greater fullness —> keeps the moral truth alive, more clearly realized

Greatest Happiness

To find what creates Greatest Happiness, we need to let people try things.

> So restrictions on freedom should be minimal.

> The Harm Principle is just this minimal restriction.

Individual freedom is a good, specifically:

> Freedom of individuality is good for individuals.

> Freedom of individuality is good for society.

Individual Freedom

Humans are at their best when they can be free.

> Free to find their own happiness.

> There is no need to force any particular happiness on them.

> Nobody has a right to tell someone else what their happiness consists in.

Traditions

Useful in finding happiness, many people find value in it

◦ But in the end this is just evidence of what sort of conduct brings happiness and the individual can do with this evidence what they will

> It would be folly to ignore the wisdom the past, but it is also folly to consider oneself beholden to it.

◦ Traditions might also be come dead doctrine.

> And then they might need to be re-interpreted, re-fashioned to fit modern life.

◦ And any individual might be iconoclastic.

> Even if a tradition is good for most, it might not be good for all.

◦ Blind obedience would be inhuman, coercion anti-human.

Counterpoint - Calvinism

◦ Calvinists say: yes, that is the desirable condition!

> The protestant belief that human nature is radically corrupt and the only salvation is obedience to divine law.

Rebuttal

◦ Individuality is also a common good.

> Rather than a vice that is to be suppressed

◦ It is simply a denial of humanity, or humanity’s potential to excellence, to deny individuality.

> For every person, there is a best way to exist - might be unique to one person.

◦ Argues from uncertainty - maybe there is one best way that we all should conform to, but how could we know we have found this one best way? - Will not know that it is best if we don’t let people try different things.

Benefits of Individuality

◦ Just like for truth we need freedom in thought, we need freedom in conduct to find the best practices.

> Maybe only a few will discover new truth and new practice.

> But we need to let the many be to get the benefit of the few.

◦ Even if they don’t succeed, Mill worries again about good established practices becoming “rote” and useless - Blindly following tradition might lose what’s good about tradition

Counterpoint - conformity

◦ Some people do not care for freedom.

> They value conformity over their individual happiness.

> Want nothing more for their individual happiness than something to conform to.

> People who call themselves “normal” with pride.

Rebuttal

◦ It is still better for you if you let people be.

> You can conform to whatever you want to conform to.

> But if you demand the same of everyone else, you will lose on the societal benefits of geniuses and eccentrics.

◦ Those who value conformity cannot value originality - Originality is a threat to their conformity.

◦ To net the benefits of genius, one must tolerate all originality

◦ All good had to be invented or discovered by someone.

> Probably against the opposition of conformists.

◦ Against despotism, we can only put the originality of individuals.

Freedom for its own sake

◦ We must not let the desire for improvement lead us away from maintaining freedom.

> Maybe good things can be enforced.

◦ But freedom is valuable for its own sake, not just for the improvements that it can bring.