Mill, On Liberty - Chapter 4 (Society and Individuals)

Harm Principle Counterpoint

Power can be rightfully exercised against will to prevent harm to others

Still very vague and allows a lot of leeway

> No principle of proportionality

 Extremely draconian measures could be justified on grounds of “preventing harm”: Total surveillance,police statism, prosecution of individuality on grounds that it harms social cohesion

Trade-offs btwn: free speech vs. individuality vs. harm - none of these principles is, in the end, absolute

Trade offs with Authority

Mill: individual life and civic life are each their own spheres.

> The part of one’s life that is concerned with oneself is where individual freedom reigns.

> The part of one’s life that is concerned with society is where civic duties reign.

Not sharp boundaries, often overlap

> Mill: looking for equitable middle ground that preserves freedom of individuality

Guiding principle: individuality is valuable also to society, so there is also a civic duty to let people have their individuality

Civic sphere

Civil rights and equitable contribution to society outstrips individuality.

> Can’t kill people, have to pay taxes, conduct can be regulated.

“Equitable principles” define the civil sphere

Personal sphere

Only affects the individual.

> “Right to privacy” in constitutional doctrine - ex: homosexual marriage does not affect anyone except the ones entering it.

Personal does not mean isolated.

> What is done personally might be visible to other people and judged by them.

> And they can draw their conclusions about you.

But the law should stay clear of the personal.

Public opinion

> Public opinion can and often should judge

> Public disapproval is something to take into account, but it is not definitive.

 It is up to the individual to know what is right for them.

> An individual has incomparably greater knowledge of themselves.

Mill’s response to bigotry

Gives wide leeway to bigotry.

> Speech cannot be restricted on the basis of content, only manner in which the conduct is presented whereby speech may be suppressed

> The right to speech is not a right to be heard or to be welcomed.

Free speech can be suppressed socially - nearly as bad as legal suppression

> Freedom of association should not be used to suppress speech.

> Mill says you can always walk away, but only for your own good and not as punishment.

Mill recommends that you can draw the line by whether you are avoiding someone out of anger or out of displeasure.

> Anger encourages punishment.

> If you can stand it, he says, you should try to improve that person

Helping others

The proper sentiment is a desire to help the person out of that what makes them distasteful.

> Of course not everyone is able to do that

He did not consider consequences of insincere debates.

> Too many debates about racism might lead to more racists.

> Might think that good sense will prevail.

When a debate is out in the open, the proper answer will win and this will be apparent to everyone.

> naïve?

Our speech environments have many restrictive properties that we might experience as punishing

Not everybody who has something to say will be able to say it wherever and to whomever they want

> In a sense, Peer Review is a free speech restriction

> Not everybody can be on national TV, etc.

The important thing is that these are not punishments, but to promote the best arguments and most important debates

> Can be wrong about what is “best” and “important”, so there must be space for debates about that

Objection: nothing is truly individual

E.g. smoking – it only hurts the one who does it, but arguably

affects everybody’s insurance rates.

Rebuttal

The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.

Objection: protect people from themselves

Many self-regarding “vices” are very harmful:

• Gambling

• Drunkenness

• Sexual irresponsibility (“incontinence”)

• Laziness

• Poor hygiene (“uncleanliness”)

These, he says, can damage a person’s happiness at least as much as things that are illegal (like theft or assault)

Rebuttal

The value of individuality outstrips these considerations.

> We don’t really know someone else happiness.

If society tries to control people’s private lives, it usually gets it wrong. It forbids things that don’t need forbidding, or intervenes in places where it has no business

The Bigot’s Freedom

A tolerant society is an injury to them - liberty is restricted insofar as they cannot openly discriminate.

Rebuttal

Personal distaste is not a harm.

> Discrimination is harmful, but not-being-able-to-discriminate offends at most against the bigot’s personal taste.

Discrimination is not prohibited because people find it distasteful, but because it is recognized as harmful.

> And in the privacy of their own home, where it affects no-one, the bigot can do what they want.

Liberty

Mill rejects rights over others, unless these rights are consequences of civil liberties.

 Liberty is the only source of right.

> The right not to be harmed comes from individual liberty. 

> We prohibit censorship not because we are right, but because we

might be wrong.

> We have rights not because we know the moral truth, but because we might not have it - source of all our civil liberties.

> The liberties are justified as the practical consequences of theoretical fallibility.

Enshrined right is in recognition of fallibility and for the purpose of reducing our errors.

> Hence free speech, so that we may be theoretically corrected.

> Hence individuality, so that we may be practically corrected