Liberty of Verbal Expression

2738 Words6 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: A term paper on john stuart mill's principle of liberty

The principle of non-harm was brought forth by James Stuart Mill in On Liberty by introducing two different spheres that make up life. The spheres were private and public. A meaningful life is found when a maximum private sphere is present because decisions are personally beneficial. Democratic historical and social context give background to why the non-harm principle was so revolutionary. The non-harm principle can be applied to freedom of speech in that harm by words only occurs when the result is instant physical harm. Freedom of speech is crucial in learning from three types of opinions: true, false, and partly true and false. The exchange of opinions through freedom of speech is what strengthens arguments and makes for the truth to be discovered.

Mill’s philosophy of liberty was first made distinct by the non-harm principle. The principle defined two different spheres in an individual’s life: private and public (Mill, 11). The private sphere includes individual freedoms where full control is had over his own body and mind (Mill, 9). Limitation to the private sphere comes when personal freedoms begin to harm other individuals (Mill, 9). The public sphere is associated with governmental laws that prohibit harm against other people’s interest. The goal in life was to have the biggest private sphere possible, which meant individual freedom. Living a private life is preferred because it gives way to more time spent doing what is wanted, and less time doing what is needed. A private life is limited once private actions and words harm others (Mill, 9). Individual freedom was to be absolute and to the maximum extent possible without causing harm to others.

Mill provided the non-harm principle to assist in dealing wit...

... middle of paper ...

...groups were controlled by the school. I disagree with Mill because prayer facilitates the expansion of my private sphere. My spheres cannot be kept separate since my faith in my private sphere influences every decision I make. Harm by freedom of speech only occurs when words lead to immediate physical harm, which is not the intention of prayer, and the presence of God on our money is evidence that the nation is dependent upon God for our strength and safety. Clearly, the public sphere of our nation has not been able to fully separate the two spheres completely, so I should not be expected to either. I live my life with the highest moral purpose in both my private life and in my public life. The only way I can make moral decisions in my life is through the strength I get from God.

References

Mill, J.S. On Liberty. (Massachusetts: Agora Publications, 2009.)

Show More
Related

  • Mill Vs Metternich

    412 Words  | 1 Pages

    He is was total opposite of Metternich. Mill’s “On liberty” essay was about the individual liberty. To Mill’s, the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be accomplished in an enlightened society, in which people are free to partake in their own interests. Thus, Mills stresses the important value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, an educated person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill held this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He emphasizes that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Also, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, and for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully

    Read More

  • Affirmative Action Case Study

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s

    Read More

  • Respected Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Author of On Liberty

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a British philosopher, is one of history's most respectable moral philosophers. Mill's most well-known work on the rights and freedom of an individual is his book entitled On Liberty. On Liberty discusses the struggle between liberty and authority between society and government, and how the limits of power can be practiced by society over an individual. Mill's essay consists of arguing what laws government has that ables them to be given the right to force people to act and live in certain ways. He establishes a society that can interfere with the government, demand freedom of individuals, and allow individuals free will to do what they choose, without interfering with the rights of others. This idea of free will and liberty leads to Mill’s harm principle. On Liberty is the founding document of the harm principle. The harm principle is defined in Mill’s introduction to On Liberty:

    Read More

  • Public Education Revealed In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    762 Words  | 2 Pages

    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.

    Read More

  • Freedom of Speech

    1581 Words  | 4 Pages

    Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Essay

    3246 Words  | 7 Pages

    ...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.

    Read More

  • Freedom Of Speech

    1364 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Stuart Mill Freedom Of Speech

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    Opinions are another thing that Mill discusses when discussing the freedom of speech. Some people in certain societies may be punished for having a different opinion then the rest of their society. But we don’t know for sure what the truth really is, so is that fair? Mill says that opinions held by a community as a whole need to be contested against, because if nobody says any different than that opinion, eventually the belief is lost and becomes meaningless. I agree with Mill on this, because like he said, if we don’t...

    Read More

  • Stuart Mill Paternalism

    1093 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.

    Read More

  • Mill’s Liberty vs. Hobbes’ Authority

    1344 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill defines liberty, as a limitation of power; “By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled.” (John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” Pg. 29) This limit on power is what he refers to as civil liberty; the limitation is put into play for the people, Mill acknowled...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mills On Liberty Analysis

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    Mills believes that the people who “silence” people the most would be the Catholic Church. He thinks they are the most prejudice against people who voice against there believes. He explains, “…that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith” (49). Essentially, some of our most important teachings have come from people speaking against the Christian Church. In summary, Mills believes that in order for people and society to progress, we must give them the ability to think for themselves. Mills is persuasive in his first argument because a society that is silenced will never...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.

    Read More

  • Negative and Positive Freedom

    885 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.

    Read More

More about Liberty of Verbal Expression

Open Document