Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
liberty - Coggle Diagram
liberty
liberty
metaphysical -> determinism -> divine, natural, fate
divine: when god created human beings he created a "script" for their entire life. when the person does throughout his life is acting out the script of his life he was predetermined to do. if true, what you do or feel or think is up to you
natural: things they think, do, feel, is how they are naturally supposed to feel. (physicist)
fate: the things that happen are guaranteed to happen, and could not happen any other way.
if any of these are true, then no metaphysical liberty
-
civil (social)
problem of civil liberty (cannot have this problem unless you have political liberty) : the tyrrany of the majority
-
political liberty requires majority rule. implies there are minorities, and majorities can implement peer pressure. pressure to conform. behavior, thoughts, and feelings.
individuals' liberty is threatened. civil liberty. hence political liberty gives rise to the problem of civil liberty
solution (harm principle): the sole purpose for which mankind are warranted in interfering on the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection
if not to protect, then not warranted, justified, permitted
the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others
harm is not: physical injury (sports, etc.), psychic injury (insults)
-
principal of paternalism: it is warranted, permissible to intervene in the liberty of an individual against his will provided that intervening is for the sake of the good of that individual
-
his own good is not a sufficient warrant, he cannot rightfully be compelled to do something because it will be better for him. there are good reasons for remonstrating with him or reasoning with him. in the part which concerns himself, his independence is of a right absolute. the individual is sovereign
- 2 more items...
-
like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first (historically) held in dread as operating through the acts of the public authority. but reflecting people perceived that when society itself is the tyrant. society can execute its won mandates and if it issues wrong mandates, in things which it not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.
the tyranny of the majority was traditionally always tied to political tyranny. the tyrant would mobilize the majority to do the bidding of the tyrant. social tyranny takes on an independent life of its own, more powerful than many instances of political oppression.
to put chains on the development, or to prevent, individually -> tyranny of the majority.
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 who dissent from the opinion more than those who hold it.
if the opinion is right (true), they (human beings) are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth. truth is a good thing if you limit the expression of true opinion, robbed of opportunity to replace false with true belief
if wrong (false), they lose what is almost as great a benefit, a cleared perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error
self-actualization
as it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so it it that there should be different experiments in living, free scope given to varieties of character, short of, these experiments in living.
only societies that enjoy political liberty (self government) have the problem of civil liberty. why mill proposes the harm principle as the solution to this problem.
allowing falsehoods to be expressed gives those who are opposed the opportunity to defend the truth which helps keep truth alive
three arguments designed to show power of harm principle to protect individuality. human beings have their unique talents, desires, preferences. human happiness is about actualizing unique potentials. people want to be free to engage in experiments in living.
argument concerning the despotism of custom. human are creatures of custom. custom is antagonistic to this other natural feature of human nature -> utility, progressivism. desire to innovate, invent, discover something new. more need for harm principle to protect innovation.
divine law includes dietary rules, marriage rules, etc.
suppose now a people of whom the majority were muslim that majority would insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country. so this would be nothing new in islamic countries. would this be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion, and if not, why not?
the practice is really revolting to such a public. they also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the deity. neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution. the only tenable ground would be that with personal taste and self-regarding concern for individuals the public has no reason to interfere.
no one has a deeper disapprobation than i of this mormon institution (polygamy) is my strong disapproving inconsistent with the harm principle. the harm principle requires me to tolerate this practice. but, she must be as free to exit as she is to enter. HP requires to tolerate provided that it is left to the liberty of the woman to enter and exit.
allow dissent, heterodoxy, only way to keep truth vital. otherwise the truth dies.
improvement, must be unsatisfied with the status quo