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.
I agree completely that Mill’s ideas create a promising society. Mill’s form of society allows everyone the freedom to do as they please as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s liberty. The downside to his society is that he believed that educated people should have more of a say so in government, and that everyone has access to education, it’s just a matter of whether they decide to become educated. The issue I find with this is that he discussed truth, and that everyone has a piece to that truth, so if you silence anyone’s ideas you will be taking away a vital part of that whole truth. Couldn’t that also relate to government as well? If we take away anyone’s notions how can we form a better government?
ReplyDeleteBtw this was really well stated Leah! You really challenged me too compare Plato's, Locke's, and Mill's societies.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Leah, it's amazing you were able to organize that trainwreck of a reading into such a clear response.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Taylor's question, wouldn't Mill argue that the silencing of one's opinions constitute an interference of someone elses liberty? If everyone has the ability to contribute to the societal "truth," the only real means to do so would be to overshadow the other's opinion, without actually preventing them from saying it. Mill himself sets up the perfect way to do this, with the educated being able to have a louder voice in the society. Does this mean that just because one is educated, they know better than, for example, a farmer, who has not been "educated" but is still competent in agriculture as to how to go about that kind of business?
Excellent post, Leah! I very much agree that Mill offers the "free-est" society in comparison with Plato's and Locke's.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Pippin; it seems like Mill is contradicting himself when he says that educated people have a more pronounced voice in society. I'm not sure what Mill means but that, though. If we all contribute to the "truth", then who in society is to say that one person's truth is more important than another's? I believe that it is in a society's best interest to listen to EVERYONE'S views rather than a select few. I wonder if Mill was jaded in this argument because he had had such a rigorous education, because I see this this is the main flaw in his "social contract."