Conclusion:
In a Democracy, an individual, by himself, is sovereign; so, the state
or society
must respect individual rights.
“That principle is that the sole
end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in
interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is
self-protection…Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Premises:
(1) For Mill, “individuals” are “human beings in the
maturity of their faculties”—only adults.
a.) Children or adult barbarians are not considered adults (P. 9-10).
i.) Adult barbarians are not
independent because they cannot rule over themselves.
(2) A right is
something to which one has a just claim or is guaranteed by a society.
a.) If an individual has right to a
thing, he/she is entitled to it.
i.) inheritance
(3) Mill is concerned with three
different forms of tyrannies because they infringe on individual rights. (P.
4-5)
a.) The tyranny of custom
i.) It tells
individuals what we did in the past is right so that we must follow
our traditional values or custom.
b.) The tyranny
of public opinion and feeling
i.) the majority may single out a
minority or individuals and punishes them because they
hold a different
opinion.
c.) The tyranny of magistrate
i.) the majority can use the law to silence
its opposition.
(4) Mill is also against religious
intolerance because he thinks freedom of
conscience is one of the
basic rights. (P. 11)
i.) If a society can regulate
freedom of conscience, it can regulate whatever it wants.
(5) Individuals are entitled to their own opinion or expression.
i.) Freedom of speech and of association is protected because they are
among the
basic rights. (P. 11).
(6) Mill is against paternalism
so that a state or society cannot make a person doing something for his own
good whether it is physical or moral.
A.)
The state cannot tell an individual:
i.) You cannot smoke.
ii.) You cannot drink too much wine.
iii.) You cannot be a homosexual.
(7) What an individual does concerns only himself, his
independence is “absolute.”
A.) An independent
person rules over himself, his own body and mind.
B.) His sovereignty is equivalent to his independence.
On Liberty
:The Overall Conclusion:
In On Liberty, Mill states, “the nature and limits of the
power which can be legitimately
exercised by society over the individual” (P. 1).
In premise 7 you state, "What an individual does concerns only himself, his independence is 'absolute'" Although I think I see what you mean, however the statement reads more like an individual has absolute freedom with no concern to others in the society. When Mill in fact states that "the only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part that concerns HIMSELF, his independence is, of right, absolute" (p.9). So perhaps a better premise statement would be that, in which concerns only himself, an individual has "absolute" independence.
ReplyDeletePremise 3, can be related to the countries where under the name of "democracy", the government dictates under the hidden regime of totalitarianism. And these tyranny that Mill writes about, is indeed lose of mental freedom (33).
ReplyDeleteDoes being an individual here refer to the potential of utilizing reason? Reason seems to be important when gauging the individual's condition with that of others, but many aspects of social organization are grounded in things like person preference, class interests, or religious divides (6), in which an objective account of all individuals isn’t really highlighted. It's interesting then that these freedoms must be protected in spite of the disarray it can cause society. Thus, finding the extent to which the state can interfere with personal lives is always a necessary difficulty, all for the sake of upholding the individual.
ReplyDeleteOn Premise 6:
ReplyDeleteSometimes paternalism is necessary, particularly when you're dealing with actual children who don't know what's good for them. I wouldn't want immature high schoolers doing drugs and skipping school, and throwing their lives away. In whatever way possible, I would want my government to insure that children grow up and actually contribute to society.
If I want this for children who don't know what's good for them, does that mean I also want it for adults who don't know what's good for them? If so, am I a horrible person? Why exactly do I make a distinction between an adult and a child, when neither of us know what's best for us? I dunno. My main question is: Where should the demarcation for government paternalism be?
The conclusion and main point that Mill refers to from all the premises listed above is on the individual liberty and when does this liberty need limits provided and monitored by the society and the power of it's laws and government.
ReplyDeleteMill sees the world as tipping toward a balance in the execution of laws and public opinion, it holds much more power over the actions and thoughts of an individual than an individual has over himself. Mill suggested that society should have control only over only what directly affect it, he even clarified his opinion by stating that even those harming themselves are not to be condemned to others interferance.
My doubts now are on how Democracy is linked to this point of view Mill suggests on limitation on liberty.
I understand the importance stressed by Mill of steering away from Paternalism, but to a certain extent, as Varkay stated, I do agree that unfortunately Paternalism is indeed needed to ensure order. If not for certain boundaries we would be living in a world of anomie (though in a sense we already are). I don't think the word Paternalism should be seen as negative. There is nothing wrong with extending guidance to those who otherwise would lead to self destruction. As individuals yes our rights are "absolute", but still I would have to say that morally there exists an "unwritten" law where even those "absolute" rights can be overridden. Also, every action has a consequence, whether it's seen instantly or over the course of time. Decisions individuals make to a certain extent are continent with others since we all live in the same world. Smoking, can lead to second-hand smoke which can affect an "other", drinking while pregnant will affect an "other" the child. Finally, maybe it's just due to my personal beliefs but I don't agree that we have absolute rights even when it comes to our own lives when it leads to self destruction.
ReplyDeleteZac* not Varkey.
Delete