This module takes up the topic of Liberty. To what extent is the state justified in interfering with individual liberty? Can the state dictate, for example, what we do with our bodies, how we dress, what religion we follow, who we marry, or what we say? Should the state be allowed to enforce what is good for everyone or in the common interest by restricting the freedoms of those who actively work against the common good or don't care about it. We will focus on Mill's views on such interference, and in particular with respect to the latter question of freedom of expression. What, if any, are justifiable restrictions on such freedom? Consider this: Facebook has recently updated its hate speech policy by banning information that distorts the Holocaust (see here). Some governments have introduced legislation to prohibit fake news (see here). Would Mill think such moves are justified? What do you think?
Liberty and its Limits
How much does the state in fact limit individual freedom and how much should it be allowed to do so? In this video I give a range of examples to get you to think about this topic, and situate the topic of this module in the context of the discussion we have had in the last two weeks.
Reflection and Discussion
- Once you are done looking at the video, I invite you to do this:
- Make a list of actions that you think a state should be allowed to forbid, and a list of those action the state should not be allowed to forbid (Does it make a difference if this state is democratically elected?)
- Make a list of speech acts that you think a state should be allowed to forbid, and a list of those speech acts the state should not be allowed to forbid (What, if anything, should people not be allowed to say, or maybe say under some conditions, in some place, e.g. in schools, in court, at a rally, …)
- What explains what is on which side of your lists?
The Harm Principle
According to Mill the only justified interference with individual liberty is to protect others from harm. In his On Liberty, Mill sets out his principle that should regulate how governments restrict individual liberty. Learn about the basic idea of the harm principle here:
In the next step, we are trying to assess the harm principle in two steps
- What does the view say?
Does it, on reflection make any sense? Can it be said in a precise way? - How good are the arguments for the view
Are the reasons given for the view appropriate? Are there better alternatives? Can additional reasons for the view be provided?
Harming vs Offending
In order to understand the harm principle, we need to understand what it takes to protect others from harm. And in order to understand that we need to understand when an individual harms another individual. When, more precisely, has a state, according to the harm principle, the right to interfere with an individual's actions or speech acts? As we will see we need a distinction between self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions. And we also need a distinction between merely harming the interests of another and harming the other person. Learn more about that and some closely related issues here:
In the next step, we are trying to assess the harm principle in two steps
- What does the view say?
Does it, on reflection make any sense? Can it be said in a precise way? - How good are the arguments for the view
Are the reasons given for the view appropriate? Are there better alternatives? Can additional reasons for the view be provided?
Harming
As we have now seen, in order to distinguish between cases where you action merely has some negative effect on someone (which is true for almost every action) and those that are, according Mill, under the authority of the state, we need to know exactly what it means to harm someone. That is surprisingly difficult. In the next video, you learn about a connection between harming and rights. And you learn about why it is especially difficult for a utilitarian like Mill to defend the harm principle
For reflection:
What do you think of indirect utilitarianism? Do you think it is able to accommodate a theory of rights?
Why liberty is a good thing
As we seen in our discussion of the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma, a tension can easily arise between individual liberty and the common good (what is best for everyone, or what maximizes happiness). Since Mill is a utilitarian, what is morally right - according to him - must be justified by appeal to the common good. Why, then, does Mill not believe in an authoritarian state that simply takes good care of what ist in the end best for everyone? How, in other words, can Mill also have a big role for individual liberty? The answer is that he think that an individual’s rights (which the state ought to protect) are indirectly derived from utilitarian considerations. Humanity, he thinks, as a whole is better of with a large sphere of individual liberties. Learn more about why and what that tells us about freedom of expression here:
For reflection
- We might wonder whether some of Mill’s views are outdated or at least overly simplistic. We are inundated with information. We live in an era of fake news. Many people are predjudiced and not interested in reasonable dialogue/In light of that, wouldn’t some restrictions of free speech be better for the common good?
- You might also wonder what exactly freedom of expression entails: Say your opinion at home? Talk to a friend about it? Publish in some obscure corner of the internet? Write a font page newspaper story about it? Give a talk at a major university about it? Be interviewed on radio or television about it?
Is the harm principle correct?
A final, important issue concerns whether Mill's liberal view is in fact correct. One might raise objections from at least three different angles:
- The Common Sense critique
Millian Liberalism licenses liberty in a number of areas that are deeply offensive to many. One might want to defend common sense against such a radical alternative. - The Marxist critique
Millian Liberalism emphasizes negative liberty (freedom from interference) at the expense of ever achieving positive liberty (freedom to realize one’s own values). It neglects the power relations that remain present in liberal societies. Such positive freedom would only be achieved in a communist society of equals. - The Communitarian critique
Millian Liberalism emphasizes negative liberty (freedom from interference) at the expense of ever achieving positive liberty (freedom to realize one’s own values). Since humans are by nature social they can realize those values only as member of communities. It is only as an integrated member of a community that humans can achieve their full potentials.
For reflection:
- What is your own assessment of Mill's views? Are you convinced by the arguments for it? What do you think of the critiques?
For further discussion
- Mill thinks that censorship is largely unjustified. All opinons, no matter how hateful or obscene, should be permitted to be expressed. But today we are inundated with information. We live in an era of fake news. We have a deeply divided public, some of whom are filled with prejudice, and not willing to engage in reasoned dialogue. Do Mills arguments for freedom of express still apply today? Use about 100-200 words to argue for your position.