1. What, according to Mill, is
the major problem for a democracy?
Mill is concerned with the "tyranny of the majority" which restricts individualism, which is important to his Liberalism view. Mill departs from individualism to collectivism, still utilitarian, but concerned with the quality (as opposed to quantity) in maximizing the happiness principle. There is the tyranny of formal kind (government/authority) and also informal (social/culture). Formal authority often controls popular cultures, and enforces in more ways than just sanctions (civil penalties) for individuals to submit to their opinion of what is best, right, preferable, etc. He believes that democracy is the best form of governing, but argues that restrictions be placed so as to protect those rights of individuals, especially that of minorities.
2. Mill believes that not all
laws are justified. Why not? Can you think of any existing laws that violate
Mill’s principle? Do you agree or disagree with Mill? Why?
Mill argues that while government has a role to play, it ought not to interfere with its subjects when,
(1) When the action can be done better by private persons.
(2) When, premise 1 is not fulfilled, but the private persons would benefit from doing so autonomously.
(3)When the action gov't imposes confers unnecessary balance of power to it, thereby endangering individuals.
Premise 2 could be applied to mandatory education til 12th grade in the United States. According to Mill, compulsory education is wrong because the individual ought be to able to choose where, how, and when to receive his/her education. However, there are provisions allowing for parents to elect their form of education for their dependents (catholic schools, private schools, home schooling)
3. How does Mill justify the
freedom of expression?
To Mill, freedom is a right so long as the individual does not interfere with other's degree of freedom. In particular, freedom of expression is crucial to the airing of competing opinion so as to capture the best possible picture of truth. Debate allows the showing of partial truths, until more knowledge is gotten. For minorities, especially, shutting out their voice inhibits the full potential for growth that a society may have.
4. Freedom of expression is
protected by the First Amendment; are there any cases of free expression, which
are not protected by the First Amendment? Do you think freedom of expression
should be unlimited?
If we follow Mill's approach, all forms of expression should be allowed so long as they do not pose a danger to others. My view is that no reasonable forms of expression should ever be prohibited. I cannot think of a case where a reasonable person may endanger others. Cases of yelling fire when there is none, the slipping of classified information for Nat'l Security purposes, etc, are all negligent activities and should be reprimanded as so. As far as stating your opinion on a particular topic- or even flag burning- these things should not be forbidden. Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court once argued that though he would personally throw flag burners in jail, the Constitution prohibits using the law as an instrument to punish those who exercise this fundamental right. I like this argument, and agree with him entirely.
5. Some scholars have suggested that the cases in which the
courts have permitted states to limit religious freedom nearly always involve
activities important to minority religious groups: the use of peyote by Native
Americans, the practice of polygamy among Mormons and Muslims, the refusal to
salute the flag among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on. These critics contend
that the courts would not be likely to permit similar restrictions if they
impacted “mainstream” religious groups in America, such as Christians or Jews.
Is this criticism fair?
I think its a fair criticism, though it would be hard to name a popular religon that holds onto a practice that explicity, and clearly harms another. Less can be said for informal practices and beliefs, however, as those can be equally as dangerous. The debate seems to be couched in the utilitarian principle, in that the majority beliefs will receive preferential bias just because there are more of them. My own view which I detail in Q.5, is that no reasonable expression of freedom should be prohibited.
I'm amending Q.2.
ReplyDeleteMill recommends compulsory education in the event that people are not aware of what is higher value (in terms of maximizing happiness principle). A better example are those listed in Q.6., Native Americans and peyote, Flag burning, etc.
ad 1: Very nice!
ReplyDeletead 2: I am not quite sure what you mean by an “action that can be done better by private persons?” For your example, does that mean that education should not be mandatory for those who can do a better job at educating their children themselves? How about those who want to home school their children, but lack the necessary education themselves? Mill’s principle is more straightforward, he claims that the government has not right to restrict persons in their liberty unless their action harms others, not even if the restriction is for the individual’s own good. But this holds only for adults. So in your example one could hold that children can be forced to be educated, but adults should not be forced. An easy example is the law that forces people to wear seatbelts. According to Mill this is an unjustified restriction. Your example is a bit more difficult, because it raises the question whether or not the law can restrict parents to make decisions for their children.
ad 5: It might be hard to show that a religious practice is harmful, but there are practices that are prohibited in the US despite the First Amendment, e.g. polygamy, whereas the use of wine in Christian ceremony was exempt during prohibition. Good that you bring up utilitarianism, but keep in mind that the utilitarian principle is not about what most people think is right, but what (in fact) benefits the greater amount of people. In On Liberty Mill emphasizes that the majority of people have no right to force their view on an individual. Mill holds that polygamy should be legal as long as all involved persons are adults and consent, despite the fact that most people at Mill’s time (in British society) thought polygamy to be wrong. Mill’s view on liberty and the freedom of speech is a little at odds with his defense of utilitarianism. For we can imagine a situation in which restricting individuals can be for the greater benefit (e.g. seatbelt laws).