Class on Monday (10/24) -- video

In class on Monday (10/24) we will reference or watch the following:

Justice (taught by Michael Sandel) is a class at Harvard (Moral Reasoning 022) that might be more popular than any other. You can watch all of Mike's classes online, but in class on Monday we will look only at a part of Episode #1. In class we begin at minute 26. You may want to watch the whole thing:

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch

Sandel was on Colbert this past summer. This is simple and a little funny:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/392600/july-20-2011/michael-sandel

Freedom of the Press (redheads+Caroline)

Given that Mill’s central thesis is the “harm principle”, that everyone should be free to do what they will as long as it does not harm others, freedom of the press naturally follows. An article in the newspaper, no matter how provocative, will likely not cause harm by itself. Some people may be offended, yes, but according to Mill “there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended by his holding it; no more than between the desire of the thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep” (On Liberty, 84). I believe, however, that he would argue that things that cause direct harm, state secrets for example, should be prohibited from being published.
Mill measured society not by well-being, but by freedom. Any restriction of free speech, other than preventing serious harm, was tyrannical—no matter how controversial the opinion. As he powerfully said, “if all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing all of mankind” (On Liberty, 20). Therefore, freedom of the press is absolutely essential to having a just and functional society.
Mill also believed strongly in education and the free flow of information. He saw each person’s goal as moving toward truth and correct knowledge. A free press can inform, get people to think, and present opinions in a knowledgeable manner, all of which Mill greatly desired. In his view, to create a good and knowledgeable society, “human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter” (On Liberty, 76). The press can play a large part in that.

Freedom of Speech (Go Team Rocket)

Assuming that “we have the right to choose the society most acceptable to us” (Mill, 78) and that individuals have the ability to leave a society when the society no longer benefits them, it is in a government's best interest to allow citizens the maximum amount of freedom possible while still maintaining a functioning society. It seems unlikely that any person would willingly enter into Plato's ideal city in which the rulers assign each individual a duty or even willingly enter into Locke's comparatively liberal monarchy, when he has the option to live in a society, like Mill's, based around allowing each person complete liberty. A community that allows each person to do whatever he or she wants is, in theory, the most enticing one to join and sustain; however, like all utopias we have studied, there are certainly potential downfalls. The possession of too much liberty seems to be a possible danger, but Mill proposes what seems to me like the most promising society yet. Despite its liberal nature, Mill's society finds a good balance of liberty and legislative control.

Mill allows each individual complete liberty over his actions, beliefs, and speech. This makes the society enticing, for each person is allowed to express himself in the ways that he chooses to do so. Mill stresses, though, that it is each individual's duty not to infringe on another person's liberty. People only deserve “moral reprobation when they involve a breach of duty to others” (Mill, 79). In terms of free speech laws, this rule is important for maintaining a well-functioning society. The problem with a society that allows free speech, such as America, is that oftentimes the speaker's audience is unwilling and beliefs are being shoved down people's throats. In Mill's society, this sort of evangelical freedom of speech would be discouraged, because it would infringe on other people's freedom of belief and thought. In order for people to be content in a society and therefore have incentive to invest in the society, freedom of speech must be allowed as long as the audience is a willing audience.

freedom of speech

In Mill’s form of a negative government, society and the individual should each control that which most rightly pertains to it, and for this system to peacefully and satisfactorily function individuals must be granted the right of free speech so as to communicate with society as a whole. Free speech, including the ability to voice our personal choices and preferences enriches the perspective of society and heightens a government’s ability to best serve its citizens. The social contract is not a choice, we are supposedly born into it and we are denied the liberty of choice for whether or not we wish to join. In a government founded on negative liberty citizens are not forced to do anything especially against their will, they are only asked to refrain from encroaching on others liberties. Free speech is a liberty that is vital to the functioning of society because it is a means of participation that helps form the best government for everyone and does not impinge on the liberties of others. Free speech is not only beneficial to a government; it also promotes strength in individuals. Individuals who celebrate their own voice are committing to take control of their destiny and thus live a healthy and productive life. When freedom of expression encroaches on the safety or liberties of others a line should be drawn. Every opinion should be heard for the benefit of society but ideas should be expressed appropriately. If citizens are threatened then their liberties have been assaulted and free expression has gone too far. If an expression goes against the morals accepted by society that expression must be quelled so everyone’s rights are equal. Everyone is allowed a voice no matter whom they are speaking for and no ones voice counts for more based on age, wealth, political stature, race or religion.

Paper Topic

Is the purpose of government simply the negative liberty that Mill describes, or should government exist to support a more positive construction of our liberties and rights?

You must cite at least three of: Plato, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Kant

Length: 3-5 pages (double spaced)

Due: Monday, October 24th, in class, in your folders

Next Blog Post

Why is freedom of speech (press/religion/etc..) important to a well functioning society and what are the necessary limits that must be placed on this expression?

Please address Mill in your response.