The Place of Liberty What is Liberty?  The word freedom comes to us from old English and liberty from old French, and they both mean the same thing: unconstrained.  The real definition is; a condition in which a man’s will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will.  How about natural constrains?  Gravity or weather conditions that constrain our abilities to act and move freely.

 How about sicknesses? Do you think it can be considered as a constrain to an individual’s freedom?  How about democracy as a political system?  Do you think it has a potential to restrain individuals’ or minority rights? Tyranny of majority?  Mill thinks that democracy has a potential for that danger.  There should be ways and means to protect minority in democracies.  This concern brings the question about how much power the state should have.

 Do you go with anarchists’ idea that state has no legitimacy or with Plato’s and Hobbes’ ideas that state should have a say and be in charge on behalf of people?  What is the limitation of liberty? Is there any?  We should be allowed to do whatever we want, so long as we don’t hurt others. No harm to others.  Do you think the state has a right to interfere in people’s relations?  To determine what they do, how they live and what they think?

 How about prostitution? Or homosexual acts?  Do you think they should be legalized or banned?  Don’t we need to review the potential consequences for the society for short term and long term?  Mill thinks that anarchy is not the option neither the tyranny is.  What is needed is mix of freedom and authority.  If you like to live in an absolute free environment then you need anarchy.  Since anarchy is not a choice, then we need a balanced way.  How about a young boy falls into drug addiction?

 Do you think as a society we have a responsibility to prevent that addiction?  What would be the consequences if we do not encourage or force that young person to quit that habit?  Any potential harm to himself / herself or to the society?  How about children? Should they be free from schooling if they do not want to attend a school?  How about mandatory attendance till certain age or grade?  Mill thinks that liberty is valuable under certain conditions.

 It is a means of improvement or moral progress.  If it is not, then limitations can be justified till the moral maturity is reached. Freedom of Thought  Mill thinks that freedom of thought and discussion should be protected without any limitation.  But, what you say in public might be limited sometimes.  However there is no need to silence an opinion in public when it is unpopular.  An idea might be false or half-true.

 Society should benefit from it in any case.  Wrong ideas will justify the right ideas and right one will be known by showing the wrong idea.  In case that the general opining is wrong, then they have a different view to adapt or follow.  In any case opinions should not be suppressed since there is no gain.  Imagine that once it was thought that the earth was flat.  Socrates argued that it is round. That had been interpreted as impiety.  The dominant belief was wrong at the time.

 Imagine Jesus’ case. Execution or attempt to execution (…according to Islamic belief).  How about other prophets? When they first came, there had always been a tremendous opposition since they brought something against the conventional belief system.  Do you think knowing more will make you happier? Limitless knowledge…  If every new idea is put in practice we may face disasters. …think of atomic bomb.  What about the relationship between knowledge and responsibility?  Do you think knowing more will make you more responsible at least intrinsically.

 Think of Darwinism.. and how it has become a cult.. saying something against it is considered bigotry.  Mill argues that there is no case that will justify censorship of opinions.  In any case we learn from opposing opinions, regardless of their merits.  How to perceive the deed of doing harm to others?  If someone is acting inappropriately in public sphere.. such as walking around without clothes or wearing something weird…  Is there any offense or harm to others?

 What about if I’m changing my habits and buying a new brand of shoe that I’ve been buying for long…  Do you think the shoe company has a point to complain about me since they cannot sell more shoes to me?  What if I wear the same pair of shoes and attend a party, and my friends find it offensive that I wear inappropriate shoes at such a party … Is there a harm to others?  What if I’m Muslim and a Christian comes to me with a claim that he is offended by my prayers because he thinks that I’m an infidel since I do not follow Christianity, do not accept the right path.  Is there a harm done by me?

 How about drunk-driving?  Why would governments bring serious law enforcements to those people?  The harm is even not done yet… Preemptive actions by government limit the liberties. Or does it?  Mill defends freedom of thought since it most likely will achieve the truth.  And that knowledge of truth will subsequently increase happiness.  Happiness is the utility, if there is a utility then liberty is good.

 But, can we stop someone who is committing suicide or taking deadly drugs then?  Mill’s critics James Fitzjames Stephen argues that absurd to think that liberty is always good in itself.  He argues that liberty is like fire; it is not rational to say if fire is good in itself.  It all depends on the purpose it is used.  Controlled fire has given us the most important technological achievements.  Internal combustion engine or any system that uses fire as a starting point. All are controlled fire.

 Uncontrolled fire is often a great disaster.  Liberty is something like uncontrolled fire too.  Mill accepts that liberty does not always lead to improvement.  Although they make mistakes about choices they make, but individuals will still be more likely right than anyone else making decisions for them Mill says.  He knows that people usually abuse power of liberty.

Justifying the Liberty Principle  What about the basic rights of humans?  Right to life, free speech, free assembly, and freedom of movement, together with rights to vote and stand for office.  Some theorists add rights to a decent standard of living (shelter, food, and health-care).  Anything, particularly any action by a government that violates a human or natural right is morally wrong and should be remedied; if not the government that disregards its citizens’ basic rights face intense international criticism.  Nevertheless the idea of a natural right is highly problematic.

 Bentham thinks of rights and duties as being distributed by laws; right is with him the child of law.  Mill holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.  By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness pain and the privation of pleasure.  The basic idea is to lay out a system of rights which will maximize the general happiness.  People are granted rights so that more happiness can be achieved within the structure of those rights than would be possible under any altervantive system.

 Laws are made to increase people’s total happiness.  Mill wants to protect freedom of thought since he thinks that most likely it will achieve the truth, and knowledge of the truth will increases happiness.  How about fair competition of businesses?  Should that be prevented for sake of individual happiness?  If someone can prevent another person from taking drugs, and it is justified in utilitarian approach, then it is thought liberal rights cannot be justified in utilitarian terms.