Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
Sociology
according to the reading, how does John Stuart mill define liberty and can it be restrained?

according to the reading, how does John Stuart mill define liberty and can it be restrained?

Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
10th Edition
ISBN:9780134641287
Author:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Chapter1: Introducing Social Psychology
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1RQ1
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question

according to the reading, how does John Stuart mill define liberty and can it be restrained?

John Stuart Mil ON LIBERTY Freedom of thought and expression were principal concerns of nineteenth- century liberals. The classic defense of intellectual freedom is On Liberty (1859), written by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a prominent British philosopher. Mill argued that no individual or government has a monopoly on truth, for all human beings are fallible. Therefore, the government and the majority have no legitimate authority to suppress views, however unpopular; they have no right to interfere with a person's liberty so long as that person's actions do no injury to others. Nothing is more absolute, contended Mill, than the inviolable right of all adults to think and live as they please so long as they respect the rights of others. For Mill, toleration of opposing and unpopular viewpoints is a necessary trait in order for a person to become rational, moral, and civilized. of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern ab- body and mind, the individual is sovereign. solutely the dealings of society with the individual... . That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, indi- vidually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number liberty of thought and feeling, absolute free- is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against theological. The liberty of expressing and pub- his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him people, but, being almost of as much impor- to do so, because it will make him happier, be- cause, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with requires liberty of tastes and pursuits, offraming him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To jus- tify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which liberty, within the same limits, of combina- merely concerns himself, his independence is, This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, dom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or lishing opinions may seem to fall under a differ- ent principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other tance as the liberty of thought itself and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow, without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual follows the tion among individuals; freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age and not forced or deceived. John Stuart Mill, On Liberry (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1863), pp. 22-23, 27-29, 35 36.
Transcribed Image Text:John Stuart Mil ON LIBERTY Freedom of thought and expression were principal concerns of nineteenth- century liberals. The classic defense of intellectual freedom is On Liberty (1859), written by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a prominent British philosopher. Mill argued that no individual or government has a monopoly on truth, for all human beings are fallible. Therefore, the government and the majority have no legitimate authority to suppress views, however unpopular; they have no right to interfere with a person's liberty so long as that person's actions do no injury to others. Nothing is more absolute, contended Mill, than the inviolable right of all adults to think and live as they please so long as they respect the rights of others. For Mill, toleration of opposing and unpopular viewpoints is a necessary trait in order for a person to become rational, moral, and civilized. of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern ab- body and mind, the individual is sovereign. solutely the dealings of society with the individual... . That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, indi- vidually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number liberty of thought and feeling, absolute free- is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against theological. The liberty of expressing and pub- his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him people, but, being almost of as much impor- to do so, because it will make him happier, be- cause, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with requires liberty of tastes and pursuits, offraming him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To jus- tify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which liberty, within the same limits, of combina- merely concerns himself, his independence is, This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, dom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or lishing opinions may seem to fall under a differ- ent principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other tance as the liberty of thought itself and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle the plan of our life to suit our own character, of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow, without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual follows the tion among individuals; freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age and not forced or deceived. John Stuart Mill, On Liberry (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1863), pp. 22-23, 27-29, 35 36.
Page 2 It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion than when No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one free in which they do not exist absolute and un- qualified. The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our Own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual. Mankind simply a private injury, it would make some are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in possession of no value except to the owner, if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation-those who each to live as seems good to the pest. . Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of dissent from the opinion, still more than those coercion unless in agreement with what it con- ceives to be their voice. But 1 deny the right deprived of the opportunity of exchanging of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best govern- who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error, ment has no more title to it than the worst.
Transcribed Image Text:Page 2 It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion than when No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one free in which they do not exist absolute and un- qualified. The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our Own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual. Mankind simply a private injury, it would make some are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in possession of no value except to the owner, if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation-those who each to live as seems good to the pest. . Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of dissent from the opinion, still more than those coercion unless in agreement with what it con- ceives to be their voice. But 1 deny the right deprived of the opportunity of exchanging of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best govern- who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error, ment has no more title to it than the worst.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Recommended textbooks for you
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Social Psychology (10th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134641287
Author:
Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers
Publisher:
Pearson College Div
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Introduction to Sociology (Eleventh Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780393639407
Author:
Deborah Carr, Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Appelbaum
Publisher:
W. W. Norton & Company
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis…
The Basics of Social Research (MindTap Course Lis…
Sociology
ISBN:
9781305503076
Author:
Earl R. Babbie
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien…
Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Scien…
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134477596
Author:
Saferstein, Richard
Publisher:
PEARSON
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (13th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134205571
Author:
James M. Henslin
Publisher:
PEARSON
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Society: The Basics (14th Edition)
Sociology
ISBN:
9780134206325
Author:
John J. Macionis
Publisher:
PEARSON
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS