The Place of Liberty

What is Liberty?

The word freedom comes to us from old English and liberty from old French, and they both mean the same thing: unconstrained.

The real definition is; a condition in which a man’s will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will.

How about natural constrains?

Gravity or weather conditions that constrain our abilities to act and move freely.

How about sicknesses? Do you think it can be considered as a constrain to an individual’s freedom?

How about democracy as a political system?

Do you think it has a potential to restrain individuals’ or minority rights? Tyranny of majority?

Mill thinks that democracy has a potential for that danger.

There should be ways and means to protect minority in democracies.

This concern brings the question about how much power the state should have.

Do you go with anarchists’ idea that state has no legitimacy or with Plato’s and Hobbes’ ideas that state should have a say and be in charge on behalf of people?

What is the limitation of liberty? Is there any?

We should be allowed to do whatever we want, so long as we don’t hurt others. No harm to others.

Do you think the state has a right to interfere in people’s relations?

To determine what they do, how they live and what they think?

How about prostitution? Or homosexual acts?

Do you think they should be legalized or banned?

Don’t we need to review the potential consequences for the society for short term and long term?

Mill thinks that anarchy is not the option neither the tyranny is.

What is needed is mix of freedom and authority.

If you like to live in an absolute free environment then you need anarchy.

Since anarchy is not a choice, then we need a balanced way. How about a young boy falls into drug addiction?

Do you think as a society we have a responsibility to prevent that addiction?

What would be the consequences if we do not encourage or force that young person to quit that habit?

Any potential harm to himself / herself or to the society?

How about children? Should they be free from schooling if they do not want to attend a school?

How about mandatory attendance till certain age or grade?

Mill thinks that liberty is valuable under certain conditions.

It is a means of improvement or moral progress.

If it is not, then limitations can be justified till the moral maturity is reached.

Freedom of Thought

Mill thinks that freedom of thought and discussion should be protected without any limitation.

But, what you say in public might be limited sometimes.

However there is no need to silence an opinion in public when it is unpopular.

An idea might be false or half-true.

Society should benefit from it in any case.

Wrong ideas will justify the right ideas and right one will be known by showing the wrong idea.

In case that the general opining is wrong, then they have a different view to adapt or follow.

In any case opinions should not be suppressed since there is no gain.

Imagine that once it was thought that the earth was flat.

Socrates argued that it is round. That had been interpreted as impiety.

The dominant belief was wrong at the time.

Imagine Jesus’ case. Execution or attempt to execution (…according to Islamic belief).

How about other prophets? When they first came, there had always been a tremendous opposition since they brought something against the conventional belief system.

Do you think knowing more will make you happier? Limitless knowledge…

If every new idea is put in practice we may face disasters. …think of atomic bomb.

What about the relationship between knowledge and responsibility?

Do you think knowing more will make you more responsible at least intrinsically.

Think of Darwinism.. and how it has become a cult.. saying something against it is considered bigotry.

Mill argues that there is no case that will justify censorship of opinions.

In any case we learn from opposing opinions, regardless of their merits.

How to perceive the deed of doing harm to others?

If someone is acting inappropriately in public sphere.. such as walking around without clothes or wearing something weird…

Is there any offense or harm to others?

What about if I’m changing my habits and buying a new brand of shoe that I’ve been buying for long…

Do you think the shoe company has a point to complain about me since they cannot sell more shoes to me?

What if I wear the same pair of shoes and attend a party, and my friends find it offensive that I wear inappropriate shoes at such a party … Is there a harm to others?

What if I’m Muslim and a Christian comes to me with a claim that he is offended by my prayers because he thinks that I’m an infidel since I do not follow Christianity, do not accept the right path.

Is there a harm done by me?

How about drunk-driving?

Why would governments bring serious law enforcements to those people?

The harm is even not done yet… Preemptive actions by government limit the liberties. Or does it?

Mill defends freedom of thought since it most likely will achieve the truth.

And that knowledge of truth will subsequently increase happiness.

Happiness is the utility, if there is a utility then liberty is good.

But, can we stop someone who is committing suicide or taking deadly drugs then?

Mill’s critics James Fitzjames Stephen argues that absurd to think that liberty is always good in itself.

He argues that liberty is like fire; it is not rational to say if fire is good in itself.

It all depends on the purpose it is used.

Controlled fire has given us the most important technological achievements.

Internal combustion engine or any system that uses fire as a starting point. All are controlled fire.

Uncontrolled fire is often a great disaster.

Liberty is something like uncontrolled fire too.

Mill accepts that liberty does not always lead to improvement.

Although they make mistakes about choices they make, but individuals will still be more likely right than anyone else making decisions for them Mill says.

He knows that people usually abuse power of liberty.

Justifying the Liberty Principle

What about the basic rights of humans?

Right to life, free speech, free assembly, and freedom of movement, together with rights to vote and stand for office.

Some theorists add rights to a decent standard of living (shelter, food, and health-care).

Anything, particularly any action by a government that violates a human or natural right is morally wrong and should be remedied; if not the government that disregards its citizens’ basic rights face intense international criticism.

Nevertheless the idea of a natural right is highly problematic.

Bentham thinks of rights and duties as being distributed by laws; right is with him the child of law.

Mill holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness pain and the privation of pleasure.

The basic idea is to lay out a system of rights which will maximize the general happiness.

People are granted rights so that more happiness can be achieved within the structure of those rights than would be possible under any altervantive system.

Laws are made to increase people’s total happiness.

Mill wants to protect freedom of thought since he thinks that most likely it will achieve the truth, and knowledge of the truth will increases happiness.

How about fair competition of businesses?

Should that be prevented for sake of individual happiness?

If someone can prevent another person from taking drugs, and it is justified in utilitarian approach, then it is thought liberal rights cannot be justified in utilitarian terms.