If the power is split up from the top to the bottom on liberty essay will create an healthy climate for individual liberty. Mill further believes that individuality and spontaneity created progress. Hire a writer, on liberty essay. They should raise the protest at the slightest encroachment on their liberty. Law does not infringe the individual liberty. To this day, it is still hailed as one of the best defenses of free speech.
Upload and Share Your Article:
Any subject. Any type of essay. Mill believes that such a use in power is unconstitutional and that individuals should be free to express any opinions they wish, even if these opinions may be perceived as controversial or ridiculous. John Stuart Mill recognized that society tends to encourage conformity whether it is through laws the government enforces or if it is through societal pressure. Throughout history, it has been shown that unpopular or heretical views are true or at least a progression towards a greater truth. This brings into perspective that we cannot always know a controversial view is right or wrong until it is on liberty essay into the light of discussion and debate.
All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Mill is saying the idea of someone being justified in silencing an opinion because they feel their position is correct is assuming the person is incapable of making mistakes. If no violence is instigated, we are unjustified in suppressing unpopular ideas and we have no right to decide for other people what they may or may not be exposed to. Mill address some possible criticisms like the idea that the government has a duty to suppress certain ideas that are harmful to the well being of society, this is where hate speech comes in. Mill argued that this comes from a place of the assumed infallibility of judgement.
For instance, what exactly is the appropriate definition of hate speech to be written into law and the proper level of suppression on freedom of speech? Mill thought there was no line to be drawn in any kind of speech. Mill writes: An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Mill makes it apparent that there is a clear difference between someone writing an opinion piece about corn dealers and how they are starving the poor, and that same person standing before a group of angry poor people and telling them to grab their pitchforks.
One is voicing an opinion no matter how wrong or ignorant it might be and the other is a call to immediate action with the intent to cause harm. Limiting words of speech has nothing to do with the words or ideas being expressed and more to do with the immediate likelihood of physical on liberty essay. In my opinion, the line that Mill draws is consistent with his views that the law should only intervene in situations where it is to protect people from harm. Limiting speech tends to encourage the same reactionary movements it tries to prevent, on liberty essay. Another criticism Mill deals with on liberty essay that because we no longer we put people to death for controversial on liberty essay, then the truth on liberty essay never truly be extinguished today with the internet we can find almost anything that we want about anything.
This may be a reason to suggest that to suppress free speech is futile therefore why even attempt in the first place. I believe that we have seen this rise of this reactionary populism where for a long time those with liberal views encouraged an environment of ironic intolerance for any ideas outside of their own beliefs, which far from changing minds simply muffled voices for public shaming causing a dogmatic intellectual environment. I believe what we are seeing now with the rise in right-wing populism is that on liberty essay lot of the ironic intolerance from certain people on the left has encouraged people on different views to no longer speak openly about them due to this culture of intellectual intolerance, on liberty essay.
So by censoring minority opinions the majority is making an environment where only certain ideas are valid, which is not fair, on liberty essay. This is due to a false belief that goes unchallenged is just as likely to become a dead dogma as a on liberty essay belief and therefore the only way to keep the truth alive is to subject it to challenge. All it can take is for one new idea or one new piece of evidence to completely change what was previously perceived to be true. The main criticism to this argument is that if someone is taught the grounds of a belief similar how they are taught basic math before learning complex equations then they are not simply reciting a dogma, but have an understanding why they believe what they believe. We should understand opposing views as well as our own views, so we can prove our opinions to be true with absolute certainty, on liberty essay.
This makes it more apparent that the majority should not silence any minority opinions if they are not willing to on liberty essay with arguments challenging their own beliefs. John Stuart noticed this tendency in Christianity where certain beliefs have been protected from criticism for so long that most Christians do not know the meaning behind their beliefs. Another example would be if we say we are against child labour then we must work hard to stop child labour in every aspect, otherwise people may just ignore the rational importance behind the idea of stopping child labour.
Mill thought to allow beliefs to be challenged rather than protected forced people to search for the meaning behind their own beliefs. If the majority is not well educated in what they believe they should not silence any unpopular views since they do not understand what they believe in. The fourth argument Mill delivers is that very often it is not as simple as one view being correct and an opposing view being incorrect, but rather the truth lies somewhere in between. Mill believed that many views held as popular truth contained only partial truth. Mill stated that when we hear an opinion we assume its either right or wrong.
This explains why some people due to their assumed infallibility silence those who have opinions that differ from theirs. We can only understand the full truth when we allow different opinions to pave the way for the full truth to emerge. A good example of this would fall into politics wherein a healthy political state we have two parties with opposing views. This relates to our own political system in Canada where we have the liberal party who believe in progression and change, and on the other side we have the conservatives who strive for order and stability. In conclusion, John Stuart Mill recognized that society tends to encourage conformity whether it is through laws the government enforces or if it on liberty essay through societal pressure.
Freedom of speech is not just about whether the government censors you, on liberty essay, it is a philosophical principle. Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student. Starting from 3 hours delivery, on liberty essay. Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. We will occasionally send you account related emails. This essay is not unique. Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper, on liberty essay. Want us to write one just for you? We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Get help with writing. Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you. Your time is important. Get essay help. Related Essays The Relationship between the Liberty of Thought and Discussion and Liberty in General Essay. Human Nature Essay, on liberty essay. Diversity of Cultures: Promotion of Individuality and the Search for Truth Essay, on liberty essay. History of Economic Thought Essay. The Benefits and Limitations of Liberty in J. Mill on Liberty Essay. Find Free Essays We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling. Order Now. Please check your inbox. Order now. Related Topics Voting Essays Just Walk on By Essays Electoral College Essays Maus Essays Anthem Essays.
Hi there! Are you interested in getting a customized paper? Check it out! Having trouble finding the on liberty essay essay? Hire a writer, on liberty essay. Got it, on liberty essay. Haven't found the right essay? Get an on liberty essay to write you the one you need! Get your paper now. Professional writers and researchers. Sources and citation are provided.
best college essay
We should understand opposing views as well as our own views, so we can prove our opinions to be true with absolute certainty. This makes it more apparent that the majority should not silence any minority opinions if they are not willing to deal with arguments challenging their own beliefs. John Stuart noticed this tendency in Christianity where certain beliefs have been protected from criticism for so long that most Christians do not know the meaning behind their beliefs. Another example would be if we say we are against child labour then we must work hard to stop child labour in every aspect, otherwise people may just ignore the rational importance behind the idea of stopping child labour.
Mill thought to allow beliefs to be challenged rather than protected forced people to search for the meaning behind their own beliefs. If the majority is not well educated in what they believe they should not silence any unpopular views since they do not understand what they believe in. The fourth argument Mill delivers is that very often it is not as simple as one view being correct and an opposing view being incorrect, but rather the truth lies somewhere in between. Mill believed that many views held as popular truth contained only partial truth. Mill stated that when we hear an opinion we assume its either right or wrong. This explains why some people due to their assumed infallibility silence those who have opinions that differ from theirs.
We can only understand the full truth when we allow different opinions to pave the way for the full truth to emerge. A good example of this would fall into politics wherein a healthy political state we have two parties with opposing views. This relates to our own political system in Canada where we have the liberal party who believe in progression and change, and on the other side we have the conservatives who strive for order and stability. In conclusion, John Stuart Mill recognized that society tends to encourage conformity whether it is through laws the government enforces or if it is through societal pressure. Freedom of speech is not just about whether the government censors you, it is a philosophical principle.
Remember: This is just a sample from a fellow student. Starting from 3 hours delivery. Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. We will occasionally send you account related emails. This essay is not unique. Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper. Want us to write one just for you? We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers. Get help with writing. Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you. Your time is important. Get essay help. Related Essays The Relationship between the Liberty of Thought and Discussion and Liberty in General Essay.
Human Nature Essay. Diversity of Cultures: Promotion of Individuality and the Search for Truth Essay. History of Economic Thought Essay. The Benefits and Limitations of Liberty in J. Mill on Liberty Essay. Find Free Essays We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling. Order Now. Please check your inbox. The pair quickly became good friends. Mill thought Harriet his intellectual equal and treated her as such. However, when On Liberty was nearing completion in , Harriet suddenly died, from which point onwards Mill made no further edits to the text, defining the work as a tribute to her memory. Mill opens On Liberty by explaining the nature of liberty versus authority.
The world was moving towards greater equality, a trend Mill appreciated, although not without reservation. At best, this new tyranny could lead to conformity; at worst it stifled the originality and intellectual vigor needed for progress. Mill believes that all eras are either organic or critical. In organic periods people accept some form of positive creed. In critical ones, positive creeds lose their sway without other beliefs emerging to take their place. At this point in the text, Mill has already outlined the principle which he wishes to defend, the harm principle.
Mill deals with three cases of free speech: one in which the suppressed opinion is true, one in which it is partly true, and, lastly, one in which it is wholly false. We should all be keenly aware of our fallibility. Even if the vast majority of people in any given society agree on some issues, it does not justify silencing dissenters. The annals of history repeat this lesson constantly, which is why we should always be hesitant to suppress dissenting or differing views, even on the most fundamental questions of life. What about an opinion which is neither wholly true nor wholly false?
Mill was a keen advocate of progress. He rightly believed that the era in which he lived was marked by unprecedented material and moral progress. But Mill did not believe that progress consists of false beliefs being replaced with true beliefs. Instead, he viewed improvement as a cyclical process in which different elements of truth rise and fall. In time, the rigorous challenging of mixed doctrines would allow future thinkers to separate the true parts from the false parts of any given ideology. But what about wholly false opinions? In modern terms, why should flat earthers, holocaust deniers, and climate change deniers be allowed to express their opinions?
True belief is holding correct beliefs; however, knowledge is holding beliefs because they are justified through rational argumentation. If we simply hold onto our beliefs without passionately defending them, they will hold progressively less sway in our mind as they decay into a dead dogma. False beliefs provide us with the opportunity to defend our most cherished beliefs, making sure that they remain a living truth rather than dead dogma. By continually challenging our beliefs, we strengthen them further. Our beliefs are like muscles. If we do not make use of them they will weaken; by consistently defending our opinions, we bolster them against falsities that would usurp their position in our minds. Note that Mill does not base his arguments for free speech on universal or natural rights.
Like both his father and Jeremy Benthem, Mill was a utilitarian, which is the doctrine that actions are right or ethical when they promote the maximum happiness for the majority of people. Simply put, the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism can, at times, have a shaky relationship with the concept of natural or innate rights. This allows us not only to improve our own lives but those of our future descendants who will also benefit from our discoveries. Mill argues that in the vast majority of cases we are afforded absolute liberty of thought and expression. But thought and expression do not compose the entirety of life. We also need to make choices and interact with others.
Mill believes that every person has their own personal preferences and tastes in all aspects of life. Mill despised and feared conformity. He deeply feared a future in which people lived their life based upon nothing but custom and habit. He is not a libertine who supports eccentricity for its own sake. Instead, he argues that when people act upon custom alone, they do not make a decision, they simply follow what has already been done without thought. He gains no practice either in discerning or desiring what is best. But as before with freedom of speech, Mill does not base his arguments in the inherent value of choice or individuality. He believes allowing for individuality and choice creates an industrious and creative environment in which progress is unimpeded. He had felt firsthand the judgmentalism of Victorian England.
At the age of 17, he had been arrested for distributing information on birth control. In his adult life, he was looked at with scorn for his relationship with Harriet Taylor. And throughout his life he had to hide his atheist beliefs fearing ridicule from society at large.
No comments:
Post a Comment