Commentary: Is Civil Liberty an Illusion?

Question:

Is civil liberty an illusion or is truly guaranteed by society?

Society has the power over an individual, it certainly may limit his/her freedom, but because it has power over others, it may also provide and expand one’s freedom. Therefore, power that society controls does not have only restrictions, but also may include the expansion of freedom, considering that it can prevent the tyranny of some individuals to constrain the freedom of others (p.4).

Furthermore according to Mill, freedom is not the organizing element of society. Thus, an essential element of society is its power over the individual, the power of collective identity (p.1). However, it is impossible not to agree that this power usually had destructive consequences of freedom. If necessary, power contains within itself the possibility of suppression, although not indispensable fact of suppression. If this possibility of suppression protects the individuum from the violence of others, it even would be a tool of freedom. Thus, people can act freely inasmuch as, they are aware of a protected public power from private violence. Hence, to determine the limits of the power of society does not mean, to determine the boundaries where civil liberty begins.

Inaccuracy of the definition is clear from how he notes that there is a free society, the course of his thoughts is as follows. Civil liberty, he said, begins where ends the power of society over the individual (p.1). Ipso facto, the more civil liberties are developed then the more constricted would be the power of society over an individual. Let us assume that society has no authority over the individual. For Mill, one must recognize that in such a state, civil liberty would be ideally high. This idea is purely anarchical. Assume for a moment that this idea is correct. Although one may ask: in this powerless (anarchist) society, where, according to Mill's logic, we should recognize the ideal of civil liberty?, Would there actually exist some kind of freedom?

According to Mill, the response would be negative. Precisely, society is not considered as free if an individual has no freedom of thought and expression, freedom to live as he/she wants, freedom of association (p.12), and only then society would be conceded free if all of these types of individual freedoms are absolute and equally indifferent to all its members (p.11). Accordingly, majority of mankind did not and still does not know what freedom is; such a statement can be stated inasmuch as the content of civil liberty had been defined quite arbitrarily.

Moreover in life, an individual is protected only with the establishment of certain rights that constitute the content of civil liberty. However, that guarantee is more formal than real (i.e., façade), since the law would not be determined by an individuum but via common law and protected within the the state. The real guarantee of a free existence is only in the internal need of an individual; only the spiritual essence of the person creates the need for rights, which he/she continually would try to defend. Thus this way, society and government would recognize the individual rights and might preserve their implementation.

Argument Outline Pierce “Law of Mind"

Argument Outline Pierce “Law of Mind"

Conclusion: The statement that the state of things existing at any time along with certain fundamental laws is able to completely determine the state of things of every other time is untrue. This is merely a postulate of “hoping” and presupposes all of science. It is simply impossible to have a world where everything is preordained. There must be some tychism or chance that allows for order to be born in the universe. Out of irregularity, regularity evolves and stabilizes in what he call evolutionary cosmology.

“I endeavored to show what ideas ought to form the warp of a system of philosophy, and particularly emphasized that of absolute chance. In the number of April, 1892, I argued further in favor of that way of thinking, which it will be convenient to christen tychism (from tyché, chance)….I have begun by showing that tychism must give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of growth….which holds matter to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind.” Pierce “The Law of Mind”

Premise 1: The increasing complexity, growth, variety, diversity, and regularity of the universe demonstrate the presence of chance in creating order by a functional disorder. Chaos and order clearly coexist and our essential to our universe. It is perfectly reasonable to allow for chance to be an objective factor in the universe.

Premise 2: The disorder and unpredictability within our own thoughts demonstrates such factors in the ordering of our universe. Mind and consciousness both exist in a state of confusion and understanding.

Premise 3: Evolution itself is based in tychistic principles. The accidental variation that is demonstrated by Darwin is a clear demonstration of a system operated by both chance and purpose.

Commentary on Mill’s On Liberty Chapter 5: Is Mill’s Liberty Realistic?

Mill strongly enforces his view of liberty, one in which an individual should have complete freedom to act as he sees fit as long as those actions do not harm other individuals, by use of examples and applications of said liberty. However, in this final chapter of On Liberty, he particularly focuses on counterexamples where such liberties may need to be somewhat restricted in order to promote a general freedom for an individual such as economic relationships and the use of government to support and protect such liberty without violating such liberty. In the example involving economics, Mill demonstrates that limiting businesses such as gambling houses for the sake of restricting bad and corrupting businesses. Furthermore, he believes that governments should indeed, while allowing people to learn from their mistakes prevent others from being harmed by them through use of a police force, one which, like the government granting it power, uses force as a last measure at first utilizes the options of “advice, instruction, and persuasion”. While this may seem inconsistent and an improper imposition of the majority of society’s social values upon individuals and individual enterprises, after careful consideration we can see how these counterexamples actually strengthen Mill’s account of Liberty.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 


First, such examples might show a depth of Mill's theory that was not previously apparent. Indeed, this is why Mill provides a chapter on applications of his theory. In fact, these examples reinforce the points that while society must not punish behavior, it does not have to actively promote vices.  While it is also possible that Mill’s examples simply overlook certain logical fallacies, it is also possible that he promotes certain interventions, such as those involving gambling houses and police, for the sake of allowing individuals to have access to other previously less available activities, while nevertheless being free to take part in gambling or crossing a dangerous bridge that police recommend not crossing.                                                                                                                                                                                                            


On that note, Mill ends the chapter by saying while the aforementioned examples show that action is effective for a governing body in society, inaction is just as important. A society that allows to people to develop a capacity for choice and have the freedom to make mistakes is the society that will make true progress. However, such a society must emerge from an open culture, one free from conformity and designed not for temporary accommodations but ultimately to create a better future. Whether the future that Mill envisioned is the present we are living in now….well that’s certainly another argument altogether, one which I will take the liberty to decline for now.

Peirce Commentary

I tried to post this earlier, but was having trouble logging in, I sent it via email.

Can a concern for morality ever truly be exaggerated?

 

In Peirce’s argument concerning “The Scientific Attitude and Fallibilism, he concludes that “An exaggerated concern for morality can impede scientific progress” (44).  While many can agree that too much of anything is no good, and therefore may find that Peirce makes a valid argument, I cannot seem to reconcile with his conclusion. This argument of extremes goes back to Aristotle’s idea that too little or too much of anything isn’t good. He believed there needed to be a happy medium. This concept makes sense when applied to most ideas but there are still certain areas where I would disagree. For example, is it possible that a mother love her child too much? Is it possible that a husband care for his wife too much? When we apply this idea of exaggerating to emotional terms or ideas, it seems that it presents itself as a problem.

 

The word morality is defined as being the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior.” Given this definition it is safe to say that the word morality entails some emotional notions. We decide not to do “morally wrong” things because of how they make us or others feel. Whether or not these emotions stem from a religious background is irrelevant. You don’t need to be a Christian to know that it’s wrong to intentionally hurt those you love. Religion does not create conviction, nor does the fact that “men are raised according to a certain tradition” account for the feeling of guilt, or concern. Of course, certain traditions and beliefs are passed down from generation to generation, but this in itself should not dismiss any truth behind it. Where did the first idea of right and wrong come from? If we reduce these beliefs we have so grown accustomed to be merely traditions that we have been conditioned to live by, then how can we explain the “emotional ties” one has, even from a child, to issues concerning morality? And so it is due to this that I do not agree with the first premise of Peirce’s argument. Morality has to be more than just tradition but an innate notion, an instinctual kind of “habit” not a “conditioned” one.

 

In Premise 2, Peirce states “morality is essentially conservative”, and in the following premises goes on to say that this conservatism is detrimental to advancements in science. When Peirce explains the idea that conservatism causes one to be hesitant about questioning morals, and in therefore, in other words, we’d be hesitant about exploring things scientifically, I couldn’t help but think about Socrates. In many of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates is seen defining virtues with his interlocutors. One of the virtues he often mentions is “Sophrosyne” , which in Greek is the virtue of self-control.  To have this virtue, according to Socrates was not just an admirable thing, but it was something he encourage all to acquire.  When one is learning to have self-control, it’s important to know when to stop, when enough is enough, or when satisfying a certain curiosity is not worth the potential damage it can do. In other words, morally conservative attitude would be a cautious one. And while this cautiousness may lead to delayed or slow advancements in science, one can never be too cautious just as one can never love too much. Given this idea I am forced to reject Premise 2 and those that follow it.  Morality may seem to be unfavorable to science only because it forces one to “think twice” before making a step. But it is this hesitancy that allows for better decision making, that in the long run, would benefit all sides of the spectrum.

"How to Make Our Ideas Clear" - Peirce

Conclusion: It is important for us to know how to make our ideas clear, by first knowing what is meant by  "clear" and by understanding how a certain idea or conception has come to be. The natural challenges we as humans face in attempting to find the answers to those questions (due to the way our minds work, challenges with language etc.), many times if not all, lead us to false comceptions of clarity in beliefs.



"It is certainly important to know hot make our ideas clear, but they may ever be so clear without being true. How to make them so, we have have next to study. How to give birth to ...is an art not yet reduced to rules, but of the secret of which history of science affords some hints." (41)

Premises

1) The definitions currently used for the words "clear" and "distinct" are incorrect.

A) Logicians describe ideas or conceptions as clear and distinct. These descriptions themselves need clarification. (23)
B) The use of these terms (clear, distinct) to describe ideas are "old school" and should be done away with. (24)
C) Logic should help us learn how to make our ideas clear. (25)

2) Thought Produces Belief
A) Doubt and hesitancy stimulate the mind. "Most Frequently doubts arise from some indecision, however momentary, in our action." (27)

3)There are 2 elements of consciousness, mediate and immediate. (27)

4) Belief is a rule for action. Belief has three properties. (28)
A) "First it is something we are aware of..."
B) "Second it appeases the irritation of doubt..."
C) "And third it establishes in our nature of a habit"

5) Belief is a "stopping place" and "starting place" for thought. (29)

6) "The essence of belief is the establishment of a habit, and different beliefs are distinguished by the different modes of actions by which they give rise."  (29)

7) It is important to distinguish truth from false belief. (37)

8) It's possible for our ideas to be clear without actually being true. (41)

Commentary on Mills' Chapter Five (Applications)

In chapter five Mills presents us with examples of how his two maxims or principles can be applied in society.  It seems that the argument made by one of my colleagues was based on an introduction of what the chapter was going to be about rather than an argument on its content and how the government should apply Mills’ two maxims. For instance, premises 1 to 6 are just introductory lines of the introduction of chapter five. In addition, stating the two maxims as the last two premises reduces the importance of the two maxims and their applications, which I believe is Mills’argument.

Therefore in order to fully grasp the applications of the principles found in chapter five, we need to able to answer these questions: what are these two principles that Mills gives us? How does Mills believe the state or government should apply these two principles? What are some examples?

The two principles are, first, “the individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself;” therefore, Society should not punish or persecute an individual for his opinions or actions if they only concern himself (93).  The second principal is that, “for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection” (93). In other words, if the individual commits an action that would harm others and society feels that he is liable for the damages, he should be punished. The argument’s conclusion should be based on these two maxims, instead of a reverberation of the introductory paragraph.

The argument should have had at least one premise where you can state an example on how the government should apply some of these cases or scenarios. For instance, Mills believe that putting restrictions on trade is a violation of the individual’s liberty. The seller should place any value on his goods as well as the buyer should be allowed to buy wherever and whatever he wants, because this, indeed, is what is called free trade (94).  In the case of drunkenness, if the individual’s drunkenness only concerns himself it should not be put under restrictions. However, if the individual has been convicted of violating the rights of others under the influence he should be held accountable and be put under legal restriction (96). Another example was that of idleness. A person who’s idleness does not constitute a breach of contract or is being supported by public assistance, cannot be legally punished (97). These are some of the applications that Mills put as examples of how the maxims should be applied.

Mills claims that the State sometimes withheld the liberty of the individual with the excuse that “the affairs of others are his own affairs” (103).  The government infringement of the individual’s liberty on things that only concern themselves should never exist.   In summary, the government should not impede but should stimulate and help individual development. The government or state is the people composing it (113).

Commentary on Mill: On Liberty, Ch.II: "Mankind…"/pp. 23-33

J.S Mill believes in the power of diversity in human kind and its many benefits. He expresses his concern on conformity and the harm it does to growth. More specifically his unease rests on bans on freedom of speech. The author of this outline concluded Mill to say that individual thinkers have and may always arise in spite of bans that greatly limit intellectual thinking. However, with bans in place there may never be a collective body of thinkers and a fresh start will not happen until that type of freedom is achieved. The first premise of the outline states the belief that truth will prevail over persecution is false. However, during the course of human kind how often can we observe a body of intellectual thinkers working at once? Is it safe to say that the rule seems to be individuals rising with significantly different viewpoints rather than a body of intellectuals? Even then we can still observe progress and advancement. Has human kind proven several times over that it is within our nature to prevail despite limit in freedom of speech?    

I do not argue for bans against freedom of speech. I do however, believe that truth can and will prevail over persecution as it has been done before however high the price might have been, is or will be. Mill speaks of a number of examples when men in history were persecuted, including Socrates (23). However, just as Mill points out, many if not most of the figures mentioned are individuals still spoken and learned about today. The price was high and lives were lost because they spoke up. These individuals did not speak out blind to the fact that they were going against what was commonly and strongly believed and protected. They spoke out fully aware and in spite of the repercussions. Do these persecutions effectively stop many from coming forward and speaking as well? Yes. However, Socrates and the likes are spoken about today because there were others who felt just as strongly as he did and continued to push through. This resilience with truth is stated by Mill himself (28). How does this differ from the truth prevailing?

It is very ambitious to speak of a new start. Mill speaks of conditions that have to be in place before we can arrive at a free thinking environment where intellects can exchange ideas free of persecution (33). However, these brief moments Mill speaks of existed as he states in a period where old ways of thinking had been dismantled and new ones had not yet been adopted (33). Once a new one is adopted history shows time again a preferred viewpoint takes precedence over others and the cycle starts again. There is not a prolonged period of time where exchanges of speech are free of stigma either from the government or society. As Mill points out social stigma is just as effective as corporal punishment (30). To give a more recent example than that of Mill’s, when President Obama was first running for the White House he did not support gay rights or more specifically gay marriage. However, four years later re-elections around the corner, he changes his stand and suddenly supports gay rights. Why was there a change of heart? It was a political move. He may have supported their beliefs from day one but might have thought it might have been unfavorable for him at the time. This however, feeds into the natural progression of advancement. There will always be two sides to an issue. One individual may be the one to present it but there are those who will dissent and vice versa. The truth will prevail because those who strongly believe in it will not stop from fighting for it despite the outcomes. Mill is correct: It does not take one individual; it takes many. This is always done even if at work during different epochs.      

Mill’s answer to this question might lie in more favorable times. Advancement can be great and vast if exchanges take place in a contemporary environment. The work of one individual may sit there until the times allow it to come back which is very different from the genius we may not be aware of due to fear of persecution. Persecution itself also serves as silencing the individual that could have had greater contributions to society. Part of growth and seeking truth is in feedback and questions that forces the individual to think and dig further into their viewpoint. However, the silence from brilliant minds deprive their fellows from growing and opening as well. Also, an individual could be wrong as well but fear of questioning halts study, learning and growth.