Mills View on Social Liberty and Tyranny of Majority - Coursework Example

TECHNOL ON LIBERTY Technol on Liberty Customer inserts his/her name Customer inserts tutor’s name Customer inserts grade course 31,03,2012. John Stuart Mill lived from 1806 to 1873. He ventured into many academic fields including philosophy, economics, politics, and sociology among others. In addition, Mill ventured into feminism. He saw the importance of women issues being listened to and he stood to speak out their rights and discourage the oppression of women. In addition he wrote various articles on women rights, and thus it makes him one of the earliest feminists. He wrote a book On Liberty in 1859, which advocates the rights of individuals over the rule of majority. The key principle that he explored in the book is the idea of the harm principle (Hamburger 2). This harm principle is an idea that power is rightfully exercised over an individual of a civilized community against his will for the purpose of preventing him or her from harming other members in the society. This school of thought allows an individual to do whatever he wishes to do as long as his actions do not harm other members of the society. This paper discusses the case of abortion in which the principle for determining the scope of society’s authority over the individual is less than clear, and it will also explore how Stuart Mill would use his principle to defend abortion. Abortion is the termination of a growing fetus from the womb of the mother before it is born. Abortion has been an issue of debate over a long period and even today the debate is on. The objective of this essay is to assert the principle of harm, which governs the dealings of society and the individual in a way that he compels and control whether the means used are of moral, public opinion, or it is by physical form like legal penalties. The controversy over its moral status and legal matters has raged in creating a heated debate. Mill’s View on Social Liberty and Tyranny of Majority Mill argued that, the struggle between authority and liberty was the most conspicuous feature of history. According to him, liberty in antiquity involves subjects and the government. He defined social liberty to be tyranny of political rulers. He named various types of tyrannies like the tyranny of the majority and the social tyranny. Social liberty advocates that, people should be granted the right of saying in the decisions of the government or limiting the powers of rulers so that they will not use their power to make harmful decisions which will interfere with the social order of the society (Cass & Thaler 1160). Social liberty was divided into two parts which include; obtaining recognition of some immunity termed as political rights or liberties, another one is establishing a system of constitutional checks (Frey & Stutzer 166). According to Mill, limiting the government’s power was not adequate. He argued that, if society issue wrong mandates through the execution of mandates, the society will be accused of practicing social tyranny that is more serious than any other form of political oppression. Democracy. The Harm Principle versus Abortion Mill’s harm principle states that people should have individual liberty over the society’s authority. This principle has it that individuals should have the freedom to think and act over their own opinion even if one differs from the majority’s opinion. There are two main groups involved in the debate of abortion and they include the pro choice movement that insists that women should have the right to choose whether to terminate fetus or leave it to live. On the other hand, the pro life movement insists that the unborn has a right to be born at the right time and survive. The pro-choice movement seems to be in line with Mill’s argument of individual authority over the society, but the pro life movement supports the majority, which is the society that recommends that the pregnancy should be carried up to term, and the infant should come out of the mother’s womb at the right time. The abortion laws vary from one jurisdiction to another. For instance, in Canada, the law has legalized abortion, and it is offered upon demand without questioning. We can deduce that in Canada, the individual has the sole decision as far as abortion matters are concerned, as in Mill’s liberty. However, in Ireland, abortions are illegal and if one is guilty of aborting, it becomes an offense and she has to be convicted in a court of law over the action. Ireland morality and law argue that a fetus is an independent person in very special circumstances of existing in another person’s bodies hence the larger person who is the mother, has no authority to interfere with the life of this small person in any way. This statement gives the view of logistic difficulties of treating the fetus as an object without life, which can be subjected to any kind of direct action. Opinions on abortion range from complete prohibitions, even if it is meant to save the life of the mother, to complete legalization with the assistance of public funding like the case in Canada. Appeals made on abortion debate centers on the rights of the fetus, the rights of the pregnant woman or the rights of the majority society members. According to Mill’s principle, the idea that no single individual should be prevented from acting in the way he or she chooses to act is not fully justified when meditating on the issue of abortion (Mill 54). An individual’s own well being either physically or morally is not sufficient to warrant her permission to do as she wishes concerning issues dealing with abortion. Mill sees wrong doing and harm as related. If a harmful action is done to other people, the action is considered to be beyond morality. Some people say that even if the harm is self-regarding as long as it harms oneself, the harm is still considered to be beyond morality. Definitions of Harm according to Stuart Mill Mill explains harm in two maxims. The first maxim is that the individual is never accountable to society for his actions as long as the concern interests no other party, but himself or herself (Mill 68). Regarding the issue of abortion, the question is, is the fetus in the mother’s womb her property or is it community members who belong to the society at large. Some people believe that life begins at conception and so regard abortion as a kin to murder as it involves an action of taking away another person’s life. This person, whose life is being taken away, is regarded to be an independent person and not part of the one carrying the person or life. These people further believe that abortion is a direct defiance of human life. Since every civilized society punishes every person who attempts to harm intentionally or take the life of another person, abortion is regarded to be no different from this idea. Those individuals who support the idea that abortion is an individual action and does not in any way harm the society argue that almost all abortions are done during the first trimester of the pregnancy when the fetus is dependent on the mother, moreover, during this period, the fetus is usually attached by the umbilical cord and placenta and the health and survival of the fetus is dependent entirely on the health of the mother. The two personalities are never separate entities as the fetus cannot exist outside the womb of the mother. In addition, some of them argue that the fetus is insensitive and not yet formed to a human being hence any harm or action done to it is like doing it to an object. The pro-choice movement distinguishes two ideas of personhood and human life. They argue that human life occurs at conception but further say that the vitro fertilization are human lives as well and those not implanted are usually thrown away. They argue that the throwing away of these vitro fertilizations is not murder and abortion is just the same case. In summary, the pro choice movement is trying to convince people that abortion is not murder, and it is over an individual’s liberty and it does not affect the majority or the society in any way. This is the movement that Mills would have joined with an idea that an individual has liberty over his or her actions as long as he or she is not harming others. However, this principle does not clarify whether the fetus is a person being harmed by another person or not to fit into Mills’ liberty (Liew 194). The second maxim poses the question of the broader definition of harm, incorporating the harm caused to the society. Mill argues that harm is not limited to another person but can be plural harm without defining the specific individuals harmed. He argues that the society exists, and it can be harmed, but it can use its own coercive means to protect itself. This brings about the ideas of positive and negative liberties. The harm principle was formulated on political grounds because it is very influential in liberal political philosophy. It entitles every one the right to think, to feel, to act, to self express, and to organize themselves into groups despite what the society views of them as long as the individual does not harm others. This principle was formulated to protect the democratic rights of citizens based on politics. Mill’s conception of individual liberty can be used to justify an individual’s freedom in opposition to unlimited social control in the case of abortion (Liew 195). Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism according to the ethical theory. Mill set forth falsifications premise, which is a key component in scientific method to remedy the problems of inductive method approach in sciences like bias and confirmation. From the discussion above, Mill’s harm principle is not very clear when it is applied in some matters of society. A good example is the case of abortion discussed above. Many societies are against abortion and they view it to be immoral but some individuals argue from Mill’s point of view that every individual has the right to act as his or her desire directs her as long as her actions do not harm other members of the society. They further argue that the fetus they carry (mothers) are their own hence they can do anything with them, but the society comes into argue that the fetus carried in mothers wombs belong to the majority, which is the society and that mothers are only given the role of carrying them up to term by the society. The society argue that carrying the fetus is a role allocated to mothers in division of labor in the society as men are also allocated their roles like being the head of the family. Through this clarification, the society argues that the mother has no authority to expose the fetus to any conditions, which could harm it as he or she would wish to do. According to the explanation above, there is confusion on whether Mill’s application of the harm principle in this matter is clear. The principle further argues that if the action is self regarding or directly affects the person doing the action, the majority or society should never intervene even in cases in which the actor is harming herself (Liew 197). Mill, however, argues that individuals should not commit lasting and serious harm to themselves or their own property by the principle of harm. This is because human beings are dependent on each other and no one exists in isolation, therefore, the harm done to oneself directly or indirectly harms others and the destroying of property deprives the community and oneself. May be if he could have explained the serious and lasting harms, we could have known if abortion is one of them. He further argues that he excuses those incapable of self government from the principle, like those living in backward states of society as will as the young children (Liew 211). Mill’s harm principle raises a number of complications, for instance, he says that harm may include acts of commission and acts of omission. So we remain to ask ourselves, are failings to rescue a drowning child a harmful act or are failings to pay tax harmful acts, or are failings to appear as a witness in court a harmful act? These are some of the few questions that we find ourselves in when applying Mill’s harm principle, even in abortion, but these harmful omissions need to be regulated. In contrast, if an individual is harmed without force or fraud, is it counted as harming someone and is the individual affected consented to assume the risk? In this case, one can offer comfortably another person unsafe employment as long as no deception is involved. There is no limit to consent that Mill recognized by stating that society should never permit people to involve themselves or sell themselves to slavery. These and other cases discussed above analyzes that the arguments on liberty are strongly grounded on the utility principle and not on societal moral values like abortion and its consequences. On liberty encourages free speech as an impassioned defense when Mill states that free discourse is crucial for the intellectuality and progress of the society (Frey & Stutzer 166). He argues that silent opinions lack the element of truth. People should be allowed to air their opinions whether true or false because even false opinions make individuals abandon erroneous beliefs if involved in an open exchange of ideas, and they force other people to reexamine and re-affirm their beliefs because of weakness of the will (Heath 265). According to Mill, it is not enough for one to have unexamined belief that may be true, he or she needs to understand why the belief is true. More light will be the only solution for understanding Mill’s harm principle in use. Shading more light to people will make them realize that every human society’s ideas and customs are transformed from time to time. As a result of you could find an idea held at a particular time epoch could undergo modifications or be dropped completely in the next epoch (Mill 19). Society is an institution with human beings is political and social living things. Society hence has a role of suggesting some social relations of its members. Through this purpose, human beings become conscious of an individual’s place in the society and through the membership acceptance in the society, it makes human beings accept his or her allocated responsibilities. Societal harmony brings about healthy social relations while the vice versa produces crisis (Bendle 38). Excessive practice of liberty or its absence to exercise liberty can lead to unsocial relations in the society. So liberty should be exercised by members of the society, but it should also be regulated to avoid excess of it. Mill’s harm principle has to consider that if an action affects the society indirectly without going against any of the obligation, the society has the obligation of bearing the inconvenience for the sake of the greater good of the freedom of human beings. Society has been given the duty of nurturing its individual’s entire lives from childhood to adulthood through instilling in him or her societal values during the socialization process (Bendle 40). If an individual fails to accept these values or remains immature in his or her entire life, the society has to be blamed for that. The same way if an action is harmful as the case of abortion, the society will see its negative effects, and they are to act accordingly. If the society looks at those kinds of vices and hesitate to take action, it will have failed to perform its roles. In conclusion, Mill’s liberty, individuals should make their own decisions about their lives like, which religion to follow, and the government is only allowed to interfere or come in for the sake of protecting the society members. Mill’s analysis of liberty was focused on political ruling and how those in power are giving the subjects democracy to air their decisions in government matters so that their ruling is democratic and not dictatorship. Mill’s harm principle appears to be a one rule theory that seems easier to adhere at a glance. However, as one digs deep into the meaning of the only situations when the state is allowed to interfere with the individual is when the individual is threatening to harm other members of the society. The questions that come into mind and remain unanswered are: what is harm? What constitutes harm? What level of harm should constitute punishment? These questions bring about doubt over the practice of the harm principle and more, especially on societal values like abortion. Mill’s commitment to utilitarian beliefs also raises questions. At this juncture, the application of Mill’s principle depends largely on what is considered to be harm. Secondly, the lifestyle of people or society that is affected includes their likes and dislikes. In some societies, some religious groups are proscribed and their membership is prohibited. Any attempt by members of those societies to practice any proscribed religion will be taken to be inflicting harm on the society, and it should be punished under the societal rules and regulations according to Mills. Given these arguments, Mills would have found himself in a dilemma trying to apply his principle in the case of abortion. This way, abortion in itself poses as an unclear social issue in the hands of Mills principle. Moreover, some issues like societal morals and values, when analyzed using the Mill’s harmful principle, loose meaning or they do not come out clearly to convey the anticipated meaning. Abortion has remained to be an enigma in all spheres of life, the various fields including that of medicine, religion, and even the society itself have tried to come into consensus on what is abortion and whether to legalize it or not, but it has remained a debate. Since his liberty principle is a kind of a merry go round principle, both the pro abortionists and pro life would use the same principle to argue their opposing stands. Works Cited Bendle, Mervyn. "On liberty: Isaiah Berlin, John Stuart Mill and the ends of life." Quadrant 53.12 (2009): 36–43. Print. Cass, Sunstein, and Richard Thaler. “Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron.” University of Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 1160-1202. Frey, Bruno, and Alois Stutzer. “Mispredicting Utility and the Political Process.” Behavioral Public Finance. Ed. Edward J. McCafferey and Joel Slemrod. New York: Russell Sage, 2006. Hamburger, Joseph. John Stuart Mill on liberty and control. Princeton: N.J. Chichester, 2001. Print. Heath, Joseph. Filthy Lucre. Toronto: HarperCollins, 2008. Print. Liew, Chin Ten. Mill on Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1980. Print. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 4th ed. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869. Print. Read More

Social liberty was divided into two parts which include; obtaining recognition of some immunity termed as political rights or liberties, another one is establishing a system of constitutional checks (Frey & Stutzer 166). According to Mill, limiting the government’s power was not adequate. He argued that, if society issue wrong mandates through the execution of mandates, the society will be accused of practicing social tyranny that is more serious than any other form of political oppression.

Democracy. The Harm Principle versus Abortion Mill’s harm principle states that people should have individual liberty over the society’s authority. This principle has it that individuals should have the freedom to think and act over their own opinion even if one differs from the majority’s opinion. There are two main groups involved in the debate of abortion and they include the pro choice movement that insists that women should have the right to choose whether to terminate fetus or leave it to live.

On the other hand, the pro life movement insists that the unborn has a right to be born at the right time and survive. The pro-choice movement seems to be in line with Mill’s argument of individual authority over the society, but the pro life movement supports the majority, which is the society that recommends that the pregnancy should be carried up to term, and the infant should come out of the mother’s womb at the right time. The abortion laws vary from one jurisdiction to another. For instance, in Canada, the law has legalized abortion, and it is offered upon demand without questioning.

We can deduce that in Canada, the individual has the sole decision as far as abortion matters are concerned, as in Mill’s liberty. However, in Ireland, abortions are illegal and if one is guilty of aborting, it becomes an offense and she has to be convicted in a court of law over the action. Ireland morality and law argue that a fetus is an independent person in very special circumstances of existing in another person’s bodies hence the larger person who is the mother, has no authority to interfere with the life of this small person in any way.

This statement gives the view of logistic difficulties of treating the fetus as an object without life, which can be subjected to any kind of direct action. Opinions on abortion range from complete prohibitions, even if it is meant to save the life of the mother, to complete legalization with the assistance of public funding like the case in Canada. Appeals made on abortion debate centers on the rights of the fetus, the rights of the pregnant woman or the rights of the majority society members.

According to Mill’s principle, the idea that no single individual should be prevented from acting in the way he or she chooses to act is not fully justified when meditating on the issue of abortion (Mill 54). An individual’s own well being either physically or morally is not sufficient to warrant her permission to do as she wishes concerning issues dealing with abortion. Mill sees wrong doing and harm as related. If a harmful action is done to other people, the action is considered to be beyond morality.

Some people say that even if the harm is self-regarding as long as it harms oneself, the harm is still considered to be beyond morality. Definitions of Harm according to Stuart Mill Mill explains harm in two maxims. The first maxim is that the individual is never accountable to society for his actions as long as the concern interests no other party, but himself or herself (Mill 68). Regarding the issue of abortion, the question is, is the fetus in the mother’s womb her property or is it community members who belong to the society at large.

Some people believe that life begins at conception and so regard abortion as a kin to murder as it involves an action of taking away another person’s life. This person, whose life is being taken away, is regarded to be an independent person and not part of the one carrying the person or life.

Read More