Conclusion:
The Individual should be allowed to act according to his own
convictions without being persecuted. He should be allowed to hold his opinions
and put them into practice if they only concern himself. The
individual’s free will should be limited only if his opinions or acts harm
others.
“But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns
them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things
which concern himself, the same reasons which shows that opinion should be free
prove also that he should be allowed,
without any molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.”(pg.
53).
Premises:
1.
"The free development of individuality should be
seeing as one of the leading essentials of well-being," because it promotes education,
instruction, creativity among other things (54).
2.
The individual needs to develop his faculties;
therefore, he can use and interpret experience his way (55).
3.
“Custom does not educate or develop any of the
qualities which are distinctive endowment of a human being.” (56)
a)
A person who is molded by customs and culture cannot
develop all of his/her faculties.
b)
If the individual does only what others do, his
faculties will be of no use.
4.
“Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere
of freedom” (62).
a)
If we constraint the individual’s mentality we
are not going to be able to see his ingenuity.
b)
Genius can only be achieved by thinking outside
the box.
5.
Individuality produces diversity. In addition, humans are not to be mold, they need to grow
and develop their faculties to be able to interpret their experiences.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore I say what I'm about to say, I want to make clear that I don't like any speech or publication whose sole intentions are to mock and perpetuate stereotypes. Free speech however isn't bounded by what I like or dislike. It should only be bounded when, as you said, it harms others.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, back in 2005, I was a religious 14 year old who found the Denmark cartoons mocking Muhammad to be deeply offensive. Muslims are taught to love Muhammad more than they love their own parents, so to not be offended by it felt like sin. Looking back on it however, despite how disrespectful the cartoonists were, nothing they drew ever made me feel like my life was in danger. In fact, they were the ones whose lives were at risk and so I felt embarrassed whenever I heard Muslims make petty death threats against the cartoonists. These few Muslims were perpetuating the same stereotypes that the cartoonists were perpetuating.
Those few death threats were not only offensive to non-Muslims, they were intimidating. Now I can say that they needed to be censored more so than the cartoonists did. I can however also say that if they were censored, then the outrage would've been worse, and some Muslims would stand in solidarity and make more death threats together. It's difficult to imagine how something like a mob of death threats could be suppressed. So perhaps, the practical (of not further enraging an angry community) trumped the ideal (of censoring an intimidating community).
ok to start, premises 2 and 5 are pretty much the same thing. Other than that this is nice and succinct. I like how Mill not only argues that the State should allow people to act freely not only because it's a human rights issue or something but it allows genius to develop creating a more diverse and stronger population. There is however an issue I believe he touches on and that is actions and/or opinions that others find offensive, how does a government draw the line in a way that is as objective, rational, and fair as possible?
ReplyDeleteIn On Liberty, two themes, the tyranny of the majority and of custom, permeate the whole text. In Chapter three, for Mill, individuality is in danger because of the tyranny of the majority and of custom, and to the lesser extent the tyranny of religion, Calvinism. Under the tyranny of the majority, one is hard to be an individual. The majority, custom, and public opinion all demand individuals to conform to social norms. Mill wants to overcome the value of individuality over the prevailing general sentiment.
ReplyDeletePremises #4 is against premise #3 “Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.” Mill points out that as long as an individual is not harming others, he/she can do whatever he/she wants. Mill praises individuality and uses the Athenian statesman, Pericles as an example. Those who contribute to society are persons who have distinctive personality or individuality. The custom or God’s will is “evil” because it undermines individuality. The custom or traditions have to make way for individuality. Mill claims that a person’s choice is best for himself because it is his choice. As long as a person chooses it, it is the best--choosing something makes it best.
I do beleive that an individual should be given space in order to find a sense of self. However, I also feel that individuals especial when younge should be able to seek guidance, to stray them to the right place. I know that creating ones own experiance is a crucial part of life, but what ever happen from learning from ones mistakes to not make to same one?s
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Tony and say that I too found Mill vague when he refers to the only limit of expression being 'harm'. Just a few weeks ago there was outrage over a comment (not a joke) a comedian made about rape. The comment was offensive to some but not others and so was the comedian's apology: vague. It seemed the comedian was just as confused as to why the comment would offend. The affected population would respond differently than those who weren't affected. Where do you draw the line? It's subjective. Is it up to the public and majority to decide what is harmful? Is it up to the government? Is this kind of censory really harmful to the expression of individuality?
ReplyDeleteI want to go back to Zac comment and relate it the theory Mill suggested in his writing, when the Muslim rage on the cartoonist who drew a cartoon of Muhammad in a mocking manner accured, it was because it was the unusual and unexpected as well as the big NO act that every religious men didn't expect to happen, it was not directly harming them in a visual way but rather harmful to their should and disrespectlful to their belief so it is harmful, that is what created a great rage against the cartoonist. Mill would probaly say that the cartoonist action is not subject to any legal persecution given that it is not harmful to the members of society but it's fine if the members of society show their disapproval on the act based on their beliefs but on the other hand it is wrong and intolerable to act back on the act with all the threat of killing against the cartoonist because that create direct harm to the individual as well as the members of society due to the violence involved within the thought of opinion on disagreement and disapproval of the act by the drawings.
ReplyDeleteThe problem does not seem to be merely a flaw in Mill's theory, but rather a flaw in ethics itself. How is it possible for us to measure what is "offensive" or "inoffensive" in an objective manner? Not only do society's opinions on this issue differ from individual to individual, but the opinions also differ from culture to culture, generation to generation etc. I think it is too vague a notion to act upon as described in this particular argument.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some speeches should be banned. To say something offensive to a person or group (opinion), or to commit an offensive act agaisnt others, it is harming others; either mentally or physically. Therefore, Mills principle can be universally applied. Dean Zheng, premises # 3 and# 4 are not opposing each other. I think you did not understand the point; they are actually supporting one another.
ReplyDelete“Custom does not educate or develop any of the qualities which are distinctive endowment of a human being.” (56)
ReplyDeletewonder if we would all agree with mill’s message in this absolute form, after all it seems that we believe that some qualities at least can be aided or brought out by custom. One might think of the diligence learned by an avid student, the capacity for cooperation one acquires by participating in sports, or the altruistic care for a community brought about by practicing a religion. In each of these ways it seems our human potential can be brought out through customary channels.
Mill does not deny this but sets his sights on what he sees as custom for custom’s sake, adopted without thought or question. In this way Mill’s thought is not far from Thoreau’s. Another individualist, Thoreau spoke out against the evils of losing one’s self to the crowd, to the collective. An adamant abolitionist as well, Thoreau reconciled his individualist beliefs with a need to participate in group action for the sake of his humanitarian cause by suggesting that, so long as someone is self-aware, conscious of what they are doing and why, they may reenter the collective without fear of losing themselves. In this same way Mill is not suggesting that custom is wrong simply because it is custom, but that all human action should be evaluated and no benign act condemned. Custom is Mill’s logical target because it is ostensibly the most often adopted without proper thought.
I agree that it may be an absolutist thought. However, a person who practices any type of sports or is altruistic because of what he has learned by practicing a religion, as you say, may become skillful or may develop some positive traits but he still restricted to the rules of the game or to his religious belief. Therefore, he will never fully use his capacities.
ReplyDelete